Rev. Richard Gribble, C.S.C.
President
The American Catholic Historical Association
2018
(Photo credit: Stonehill College Archives)

THE CATHOLIC
HISTORICAL REVIEW
VOL. 105

WINTER 2019

NO. 1

Humberto Medeiros: Advocate for the Poor—
Brownsville and Boston: 1966–1983
RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC*
Based on the Beatitudes of Jesus, as recorded by St. Matthew (5:1–12),
the post Vatican II Church has through institutions and individuals
made overt efforts to serve the poor to be a basic standard of ministry.
Institutionalized as the “preferential option for the poor,” this belief
was the foundation upon which Humberto Medeiros, Bishop of
Brownsville, Texas (1966–1970) and Cardinal Archbishop of Boston
(1970–1983), based his ministry. His understanding of the concept of
“the poor” was broad, including not only the economically disadvantaged, but also those who for various reasons found themselves on the
periphery of American society. His work with migrant farmworkers in
Texas helped them to achieve greater economic justice. In Boston his
promotion of low-income housing and work to reform the penal system
revealed the breadth with which he understood the poor in American
society. His work to achieve greater recognition, dignity and justice for
those less advantaged in our society is indeed noteworthy.
Key Words: Migrant workers, low-income housing, preferential
option for the poor, penal reform, economic justice

A

rguably the most famous teaching of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels,
the “Sermon on the Mount,” begins, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) In the post-Vatican II
era of the Church, Jesus’ proclamation was translated into the “preferential

*Rev. Richard Gribble, C.S.C., is Professor of Religious Studies, Stonehill College,
Stonehill, MA, email: rgribble@stonehill.edu. This article was delivered as the outgoing Presidential Address at the annual meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association, January 5, 2019, in Chicago.

1

2

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

option for the poor,” which found roots in Liberation Theology, the constitutions of various religious congregations, and most importantly the
ministerial actions of many individuals, groups, and institutions.
Humberto Medeiros, as priest and bishop, took seriously the challenge
of Jesus, to offer support, bring relief, and serve as an advocate for many
groups in society. For various reasons, individuals and groups found themselves among those classified by the society of their day as poor either economically, intellectually, or found in some group, ranging from the unborn
to prisoners, who had been found to be of lesser human value. In an ecclesiastical career that began in Fall River, Massachusetts, later in
Brownsville, Texas, and finally in Boston as the local ordinary, Medeiros,
in word and action, took up the challenge of Jesus and, even at times in the
face of stiff opposition, worked to alleviate the suffering of others. Largely
overlooked historically because of other towering figures in the Archdiocese of Boston, Medeiros’ contribution, especially in his episcopal roles,
requires our attention.
Humberto Medeiros: Background
Humberto Medeiros came to prominence in the American Church
from humble immigrant origins. He was born in 1915 on the island of Sao
Miguel in the Portuguese Azores, the eldest of four children. He arrived in
Providence, Rhode Island with his mother, two younger brothers, and a
sister on April 18, 1931. They quickly traveled north to Fall River, Massachusetts where his father had arrived earlier to find work and a place to live.
In his ministry as Archbishop of Boston, he reflected on his experience as
an immigrant in a pastoral letter to youth: “As an immigrant from the
Azores, I experienced much of the confusion that you experience almost
daily in your lives, even though the times were different. Moreover, I had
to deal with other problems as well. I moved into a culture and an environment with which I was very unfamiliar, to say the least. I knew no English
and had to adjust to rather new circumstances and surroundings. Each of
these experiences of my youth, coupled with the ordinary pressures of daily
living, was difficult and painful for me as a young man.”1
Due to family need Medeiros quit school after one year to work in one
of Fall River’s many textile mills. Years later in a pastoral letter, he related,
“I am no stranger to the problems of poverty. Money was never plentiful
1. Humberto Medeiros, “Show Us the Way,” Pastoral Letter to Youth, Easter 1979, 4,
in Whatever God Wants (Boston, 1984), 195.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

3

FIGURE 1. Cardinal Humberto Medeiros portrait as Archbishop of Boston, circa
1972 (Courtesy of Archdiocese of Boston Archives).

in my immigrant family. Like so many others, I had to interrupt my education in order to work because my family simply needed my help.”2
Returning to school after one year, he still managed to graduate first in a
class of 651 from Durfee High School, achieving the highest academic
record to date at the school. In his formative years, he enmeshed himself
into his new environment. He once wrote, “It was out of grateful love that
I embraced my new country and decided to become a citizen.”3 Having discerned a call to diocesan priesthood, Medeiros attended The Catholic University of America, receiving the S.T.L. degree in 1946; he was ordained a
priest that year on June 15. After an initial parish assignment, he returned
to Catholic University to complete a doctorate in theology (S.T.D.) in
1952. He distinguished himself in the Fall River diocese. Bishop James L.
Connolly appointed him chancellor in 1955; he was later elevated to

2. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” Pastoral Letter, August 15,
1972, in Whatever God Wants (Boston, 1984), 583.
3. Humberto Medeiros, “Stewards of This Heritage,” July 4, 1983, in Whatever God
Wants, (Boston, 1984), 408.

4

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

domestic prelate (monsignor) in 1958. In 1960–65 he served as pastor of
St. Michael Parish in Fall River.4
Humberto Medeiros: Understanding of Poverty
Medeiros’ experience as an immigrant struggling with his family to
make ends meet informed his personal belief in the preferential option for
the poor. Writing shortly after his death, journalist Robert Ellsberg commented, “Medeiros, more than most bishops, felt an instinctive sympathy
for the poor and marginalized.”5 While his position as ordinary demanded
rubbing elbows not only with religious and civil leaders, along with people
of prominence, wealth, and influence, he most enjoyed the company of
simple people, reflecting his special concern for the poor. His interest in
their plight would never be merely academic.6
As Bishop of Brownsville, Medeiros’ advocacy for the poor was
expressed in word and action. To the graduates of Rio Grande High
School, he stated:
Only the blind citizen is unable to see the injustices which exist in certain
sectors of our society. Only the most obstinate and unpatriotic American
can have the shamelessness to deny that there is unwanted and undeserved poverty in our country. Only the basest and vilest American will
close his eyes to the plight of the ignorant and helpless citizen around
him and refuse to give him a hand so that he can eventually help himself
to a better and more human life.7

At the banquet after his installation as bishop, he cited Matthew Chapter
25, in the need “to treat every man as a child of God, as our brother.”8 He
synthesized his general creed in a 1969 Christmas message to the faithful
in Brownsville:
4. J. Anthony Lukas, Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American
Families (New York, 1985), 391–93; James E. Glinski, “Church in Crisis: The Role of the
Archdiocese of Boston in the Effort to Desegregate Boston’s Schools” (master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts Boston, 1987), 2–4.
5. Robert Ellsberg, “Cardinal Archbishop Medeiros Obituary,” National Catholic Register, September 30, 1983.
6. Michael Walsh Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season: The Boston Years of Humberto Cardinal Medeiros” (PhD diss., Providence College, 1992), 37.
7. Humberto Medeiros, Rio Grande High School Graduation Speech, June 3, 1968,
Miscellaneous Labor file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, Archives Archdiocese of
Boston (hereafter AAB), Braintree, Massachusetts.
8. Humberto Medeiros, “Installation Banquet Speech,” n.d. [1965], Addresses and
Statements on Labor file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

5

The Christian who lives his Faith finds Christ the Son of God in himself
and in every one of his brothers and sisters because Jesus said that whatever we do for the least of His brothers we do it for Him. . . . The believer
receives the Spirit of Christ who enables him to see Christ in every man,
especially the suffering and the sinful.9

Medeiros fully believed that in American society, the concept of “the
poor” was broad. Speaking at the National Assembly of the Conference of
Major Superiors of Men, he challenged the group “to concern themselves
with the aged, the lonely, the sick in mind and body, the addicts and alcoholics, the prostitutes and prisoners, the fatherless and homeless, the undesirable and unemployed. Give all you can to these broken bits of humanity,
the poorest fragments of life.”10 Belief that this broad range of Americana
should be treated with equal dignity prompted him to call on society at
large to address these needs. Troubled that many, especially in America’s
cities, lacked the basic material, intellectual, and spiritual necessities for
decent living, he urged that “all who are apathetic or indifferent to their
plight,” needed to address issues of poverty. 11 He pressed government officials not to reduce social services to the poor by making short-term or
short-cited decisions with unforeseeable effects on them. He summarized
the need for society to respond to the scourge of poverty:
Why the richest country in the world, the most advanced technologically,
supposedly the most efficient cannot eradicate the slums of our cities is
hard to understand. Perhaps the only truthful answer is that we have not
really been easier to try. . . . An environment that is destructive of man
must be eradicated, to tolerate its existence, evidently to oppose it, and to
approve of it makes us all accomplices in its evil effects.12

He called upon all to “repudiate the false assumptions still common in our day
that a poor man is less than good and that a successful man is always better.”13

9. Humberto Medeiros, Christmas Message, 1969, Christmas Message 1969 file, box
7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
10. Humberto Medeiros, News Clipping, June 22, 1971, Bishops Correspondence
1971–1974 file, box 96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
11. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” August 15, 1972 Pastoral
Letter, in Whatever God Wants (Boston, 1984), 519–20.
12. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, May 14, 1981, Governor King’s Office file, box
58, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AAB; Humberto Medeiros, Address, June 13, 1973, Rotary
Club Talk file, box 55, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
13. Humberto Medeiros, News Clipping, June 22, 1971, Bishops Correspondence
1971–1974 file, box 96, Boston, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

6

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

The Brownsville Years: Migrant Workers
The Diocese of Brownsville, Texas, established by Pope Paul VI in
1965, comprised four counties in the lower Rio Grande Valley—Cameron,
Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy, an area of 4226 square miles. Its area was
thereby separated from the diocese of Corpus Christi. The new diocese’s
Catholic population was listed as 234,000, most of whom were poor Mexican-American farm workers. Its first bishop, Adolph Marx, former auxiliary bishop of Corpus Christi, was shepherd of thirty-eight parishes with
resident pastors. The new diocese was home to eighty-two priests; sixty-six
of them were members of religious orders or communities that had served
in the region for over 100 years.14 A few weeks after his September 1965
installation in Brownsville, Marx travelled to Rome to attend the final session of Vatican Council II. While in Cologne, Germany, for a home visit,
Marx died on November 1, 1965.15
Medeiros was unexpectedly appointed as bishop of Brownsville on April
20, 1966. While finding his new assignment “truly wonderful,” he added,
“there is much to do, the people are poor and warmhearted. What more can
a priest ask from the great High Priest?”16 He was ordained a bishop on June
9 in St. Mary’s Cathedral in Fall River. Bishop James Connolly, Medeiros’
ordinary, served as principal consecrator. He was installed as second bishop
of Brownsville at Immaculate Conception Cathedral in June.17 Foreshadowing the firestorm that Medeiros would inherit upon his arrival, one
Brownsville woman religious raised a warning flag: “You have many problems facing you and we are confident that with your knowledge, experience,
and already discernible love of God, deep concern for His Church, you are
God’s envoy to bring a great union of charity to all in your infant diocese.”18
14. Texas Catholic, July 2, 1966, Consecration and Installation file, Medeiros Papers,
Catholic Archives of Texas (hereafter CAT), Austin, Texas; The Anchor, June 22, 1966,
Archives Diocese of Fall River (hereafter ADFR), Fall River, Massachusetts. Religious priests
in Brownsville were primarily members of the Congregation of the Holy Family and the
Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The latter far out-numbered the former and had been present
for over 100 years.
15. Texas Catholic, July 9, 1966, Consecration and Installation file, Medeiros Papers,
CAT.
16. Humberto Medeiros to Egidio Vagnozzi, May 6, 1966, Correspondence Consecration file, Brownsville, box 2, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
17. Gilberto R. Cruz and Martha O. Cruz, A Century of Service: The History of the
Catholic Church in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (Harlingen, TX, Inc., 1979), 35; “Installation
Program,” Consecration and Installation file, Medeiros Papers, CAT.
18. Sr. Mary George, RSM to Humberto Medeiros, May 4, 1966, Correspondence
Consecration file, Brownsville, box 2, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

7

The principal challenge awaiting Medeiros was a field workers’ strike
in Starr County. The strikers voted to affiliate with César Chávez and his
United Farmworkers; the latter had successfully organized grape pickers in
California. The strikers demanded a minimum wage of $1.25, well above
the previous rate of $.85 per hour. Aware of the situation before his arrival,
Medeiros wisely offered a cautious response that became his mantra:
We must admit these are times of change. But we must analyze the
whole situation and until we do, it would be very foolish to make any definite decisions. I want to see it before I do anything. Once we get down
there, we will talk it over and apply the rules of the Gospel.19

Upon arriving in Brownsville, Medeiros was immediately pressed to
offer his thoughts on the migrant workers’ strike. As a bishop, he had a
clear response based on the Gospel message: “Our labor-grower problem
will be resolved with the help of God, with justice and love for both parties
involved.”20 He continued to proclaim his belief that justice could only be
secured by addressing and listening to both sides of the controversy:
At present, there is unrest within the Church in the Diocese of
Brownsville, because some of our brothers are convinced that others are
dealing unjustly with them. Both sides must come to realize that they are
brothers and must bring their differences to the judgment of the Lord.
They must seek to settle their differences in a Christian manner.21

The pressure on Medeiros to act mounted from the day of his installation. In his sermon at Medeiros’ installation Mass, held in the Immaculate Conception Cathedral in Brownsville, Bishop Thomas Drury of
Corpus Christi challenged the new ordinary: “[Y]ou and I and every
Bishop of the Catholic Church must align ourselves with this fundamental
teaching of justice and charity as enunciated by the Church. We have no
other choice.” On the same occasion, Medeiros rather stridently stated,

19. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], Episcopal file, Medeiros Papers, CAT.
20. Humberto Medeiros to A.J. Kearns, July 11, 1966, Installation, Brownsville file,
Brownsville, box 2, Medeiros Papers, AAB. In another place Medeiros stated, “In the present dispute between workers and growers, the role of the bishops and priests is clear. It is to
preach the justice and charity of the Gospel and urge both sides to listen to the voice of
reason and faith and adjust their differences in a friendly way for the good of all. We can act
as mediators, as conciliators; we can meet as I have met with labor union leaders representing
labor and with growers representing management and bring to them the light of the gospel,
in the hope that they will meet and bargain for what is just for all and not just for one side.”
See The Anchor, July 14, 1966, ADFR.
21. Humberto to Medeiros, “Statement,” n.d. [1966], Addresses and Statements on
Labor file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

8

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

“You will find them [migrant workers] to be a gentle people who prefer to
live in peace, that they continue to turn the other cheek rather than
demand that which is just and right. There are today persons in high places
who have not heard the good news that slavery was outlawed in this land
more than a century ago.”22 San Antonio Archbishop Robert Lucey, the
presider at the Installation Mass, although not scheduled to speak, assailed
Catholics who do not believe that it is “the clear and constant teaching of
the Church that labor must be organized and strikes are sometimes necessary.”23 Still, at this stage of his tenure, Medeiros, while obviously favorable
to workers, addressed both sides of the conflict:
There is a great need in our time for the bishops and priests to teach and
inspire the rest of the faithful that they will take courageously their rightful place in the Church and bring the spirit of the Kingdom of God into
every walk of life. An excellent opportunity is offered to them at this
moment in the Magic Valley to bring to bear [to] the urgent and complex
problem which troubles both management and labor the full light and
understanding of the Gospel of Christ.24

While Medeiros initially sought to address both sides in resolving the
strike, his attention was soon drawn to addressing clergy actively involved
as advocates for the workers. Priests from San Antonio, Houston, and
Amarillo were vocal supporters of the strike, viewing it as a local manifestation of the ongoing Civil Rights Movement. Others, such as Dan Lanning and Victor Ralph, were not sympathetic to the workers. Thus,
Medeiros set guidelines for priests who actively supported strikers. He told
them that as citizens they had the right to protest, but he refused to support them and took no responsibility for their actions. One contemporary
report about the policy stated, “His decision on the issue could have farreaching effects on the role priests from outside the diocese will play in the
future of the protest movement.”25 He quickly sought to “get up to speed”
on all aspects of the strike, including meetings with union leaders and
farmers “in order to acquaint himself better with the local situation.”26
22. Corpus Christi Daily Caller, June 30, 1966, Consecration and Installation file,
Medeiros Papers, CAT.
23. News Clipping, Brownsville Herald, n.d. [June 29, 1966], Medeiros Papers, CAT.
24. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966]. Consecration and Installation File, Medeiros
Papers, CAT.
25. Corpus Christi Daily Caller, June 29, 1966, Consecration and Installation file, Medeiros
Papers, CAT. News Clipping, n.d. [June 1966], Episcopal file, Medeiros Papers, CAT.
26. Press Statement, n.d. [1966]. Miscellaneous Labor file, box 9, Brownsville,
Medeiros Papers, AAB. This statement proclaims that Medeiros “is totally committed to the
spiritual welfare of everyone entrusted to his care. He is also committed in the way proper to

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

9

Medeiros’ Support for Migrant Workers
During the ensuing months of 1966 Medeiros settled in as bishop,
allowing him the opportunity to investigate the migrant workers’ situation more fully and seek solutions. An analysis of the local population
demonstrated the region’s poverty. Utilizing the United States’ standard
of an annual income of $3000 as the poverty line, 51.5% of Mexican families in the Rio Grande Valley were found in this category. The educational level for Spanish-speaking people in the four-county diocese
ranged from a low of 2.8 years to a high of 4.3 years.27 Compared with
the state-wide Texas educational level of 11.5 years for whites, the Mexican population clearly was poor, economically and educationally. A
locally-generated report revealed:
[T]here is a significantly large group of people in the southern part of
Texas, particularly along the border, who do not enjoy meaningful social
and economic participation in our affluent society. Such poverty and deprivation, while tolerable in a situation where there is a lack of resources
to meaningfully address the problem, represents alienation and social disorganization of the worst kind in a land which is bountiful and full of
opportunities as our own.28

Medeiros’ basic investigation prompted him to testify to the Brownsville
City Commission about the numerous slums in the Valley, arguing for
action:
We cannot condone their [slums] existence and permit a large
number of our citizens to live in substandard housing with all the
grim consequences so evident today. In Brownsville alone, at least
20% of the homes are not fit for animals, yet our people have no
other place to live. For this reason, I urgently call upon you as the
civil authorities of our city to present the Urban Renewal Program
to the citizens of Brownsville for their approval.29

his office of bishop in the Church to help improve the material conditions in which God’s
people work out their salvation.”
27. Specific percentages for educational level for Spanish-speaking people were: Starr
County, 4.3 years, Hidalgo County, 3.3 years, Cameron County, 3.9 years, and Willacy
County, 2.8 years.
28. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [June 1967], Labor Disputes Statements
file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
29. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement to City Commission” n.d. [1967] Urban Renewal
file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

10

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

He decried the huge gap existing between the opportunities available to
some and not to those most in need. He suggested that the culture of
poverty develops into a system of powerlessness depriving its victims of any
hope for self-improvement. He often wondered why people seem to have
the least concern for those upon whom so many depend, namely, those
who work in the fields.30
The situation that Medeiros found prompted him to become a strong
advocate for a legislated minimum wage. He argued that the needs and
conditions where the poor lived should determine a fair wage. Thus, for
Brownsville he suggested that, “a minimum wage necessary for a citizen to
live like a human being is $1.25 per hour.”31 A joint inter-faith and ecumenical statement on the plight of the migrant workers went further, stating, “In so far as wages are concerned then, social justice requires that a just
wage be paid to those who labor. . . . A minimum [emphasis original]
living wage is not always or necessarily a just wage.”32
Medeiros perceived the present plight of migrant workers as a critique
of American society and its way of life. In a pastoral letter he proclaimed:
Who is unaware that the present plight of the migrant farm worker of
America is a constant reproach to our way of life? Yet they do not ask for
charity. What they demand is what is theirs by natural right. When the
affluent farmers pay a just wage to the migrant worker, when they make
it possible for him to support himself and his family in frugal comfort,
and to provide education for the whole family, they are not making a gift
of their possessions to the farmworker, by no means! They are simply
handing over to him what is his, for they had appropriated for themselves
by good or evil means what has been given in common for the use of all
by the beautiful Creator.33

He suggested that workers must have a place at the table when negotiating
their pay, working conditions, and associated grievances. Citing Pope John
30. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967]. Labor Disputes Statements file, box
9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB; Humberto Medeiros Pastoral Letter, “Food for the
Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor Disputes Statements file, box 9, Brownsville,
Medeiros Papers, AAB; Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn
Was Green file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
31. Valley Catholic Witness (Brownsville), 2(10) (January 12, 1969), CAT.
32. Joint Statement American Jewish Committee (South West Region), Texas Council
of Churches and Texas Catholic Conference, n.d. [1967], Labor Disputes Statements file,
box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
33. Humberto Medeiros, “Food for the Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor
Disputes Statements file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

11

XXIII, he labeled any other approach as unjust.34 Striking a conciliatory
tone, Medeiros suggested that migrant workers were not passive but rather
had young and vigorous spokesmen who realized that some middle-of-theroad solution was possible “realiz[ing] that the farmer’s [success] is also
their own.”35
Medeiros’ advocacy for migrant workers remained consistent with earlier
Catholic social teaching reflected in his support for unions.36 Yet, he continued to maintain that workers and growers needed to work together toward an
equitable and just resolution for both sides. Any just decision could only be
found by addressing the concerns of both workers and growers:
We know that every man has a basic natural right to form and join workers’
unions which contribute to economic progress by defending his rights, but
the circumstances of the times the world over indicate that for the common
good of peoples it is also a duty for both migrant farmworkers and for the
farmers [emphasis original] to form associations proper to themselves and
so advance together in harmony, justice and peace, and so make a substantial contribution to the whole human family. God has blessed this land of
ours with plenty—it is our obligation to work together as one people,
workers and management united in a common cause of developing themselves through their labor, thereby sharing our super abundance with others
to help them in accord with the plan of the Creator.37

Medeiros’ advocacy for migrant workers placed the Church at the
forefront of a non-religious controversy, but he insisted that religious leaders had every right to speak on such issues. As a moral issue of justice, he
suggested that the bishops can and must speak. Echoing his position that
a just resolution could only be found by addressing the needs of both workers and growers, he insisted that bishops and priests must “preach the justice and charity of the Gospel and urged both sides to listen to the voice of

34. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [June 1967], Labor Disputes Statements
file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB. Quoting Pope John XXIII, Medeiros wrote,
“If the organization and structure of economic life be such that the human dignity of the
workers is compromised, or the sense of responsibility is weakened, or his freedom of action
is removed, then we judge such an economic order to be unjust.”
35. Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn Was Green
file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
36. Although traditionally the Church was wary of unions and even proscribed some,
the break through with Rerum Novarum in 1891 changed Church teaching to be supportive
of unions.
37. Humberto Medeiros, “Food for the Table of the World,” April 20, 1967, Labor
Disputes Statements file, box 9, Brownsville Medeiros Papers, AAB.

12

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

reason and faith and adjust their differences in a friendly way for the good
of all.”38 He later elaborated on his position:
I can safely assert that justice requires that the farmer derive a just profit
from his work and investment without being unjust to the farmworker. I
want justice for the farmer as much as I do for the farmworker. In fact, I
dare say that unless the farmer can operate in a climate of freedom and
justice, there can never be real justice for the farmworker. They depend
on each other.39

He insisted that the Church’s mission was not limited. Its mission
must bring the message of Christ to the temporal order as well as the spiritual. While the clergy have their responsibility in this role, he challenged
the laity to accept their obligation to act:
For the laymen who are complacent about or indifferent to present conditions and would not change them for the better because it might cause
them some inconvenience; for these laymen who are indifferent about the
plight of workers and smaller farmers and businessmen who live in deadly
fear of losing their property and means of income which have cost them
painful labor and concern, for such as these, the Lord Jesus Christ has
nothing but contempt.40

In view of Vatican Council II’s expansion of the laity’s role,41 Medeiros
insisted that their increased responsibility mandated action. Catholics were
no longer free to stand on the sidelines as passive agents.
Medeiros’ active involvement in the Rio Grande Valley migrant worker
strike was given a major boost and official recognition through the Texas
Catholic Conference (TCC), the agency representing the state’s Catholic
bishops in coordinating the Church’s public policy concerns. In the spring
of 1967, in an effort to bring more public notice and add the voice of the
official Church to the migrant workers’ strike, Medeiros requested that the
TCC’s Social Action Department investigate conditions in the lower Rio
Grande Valley. 42 Its report recommended that the bishops bring the full

38. Humberto Medeiros, “Our Common Mission,” n.d. [July 1967], Our Common
Mission file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
39. Valley Catholic Witness 2(43) (May 17, 1970), CAT.
40. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967], Labor Disputes Statements file, box
9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
41. Medeiros served as a peritus at Vatican II, assisting his local ordinary in Fall River,
Bishop James Connolly, during all four sessions.
42. Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, TX), June 21, 1967.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

13

moral force of the Catholic Church in Texas in seeking a resolution. The
document includes a call for “Americanization” of farm workers, passage of
a minimum wage by the Texas Legislature, and workers’ adherence to nonviolence.43 The bishops also advocated the right of workers to form unions,
“in order to bargain effectively.”44 They concluded, “The Church in Texas
must work with the government and private sectors of the economy to alleviate the plight of the farmworkers of the Rio Grande Valley.”45
In addition to enlisting the support of the Texas hierarchy, Medeiros
made a public gesture by engaging in two “follow the crop” tours. Between
June 28 and July 11, 1969, he travelled to North Dakota, Minnesota,
Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, following the migratory path of workers,
many of whom called Brownsville home. Arranged by two priests in the
areas that he visited, he met with workers and growers, celebrated field
Masses, and in general sought to observe the migrant workers’ living conditions. The suffering he found moved him greatly, strengthening his view
that a just resolution was needed. Upon his return, he penned a new pastoral letter “The Corn Was Green” to address the situation from his own
personal experience:
A visit to migrant camps anywhere and a good look at the migrant
“system” within our society should convince any Christian or a man of
goodwill that it is an evil we need to strive with all our ingenuity to eliminate from the face of this fair land. A society that can place a man on the
moon should be able to defend, protect, and enhance the dignity of man
on earth!46

His experience prompted him to suggest that such trips be an annual event.
True to his word, one year later, between July 13 and 25, 1970,
Medeiros again travelled north. Accompanied by Rev. Ruben Alfaro of

43. “The Rio Grande Valley of Texas,” n.d. [1967], Labor Disputes Statements file, box
9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
44. Bishops Statement on Problems of Agriculture,” n.d., Labor Disputes Statements
file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB. In part the statement read, “We, the Catholic
Bishops of Texas, would remind farmworkers that among the basic rights of the human person
is the right of freely founding associations or unions for working people. . . . In view of the present depressed state of farmworkers and the need for organization in order to bargain effectively,
in our country, and to rear their families in frugal and decent comfort, we say that generally they
have a duty to form and join unions or associations of the type mentioned.”
45. Valley Catholic Witness I (4) (August 6, 1967), CAT.
46. Humberto Medeiros, “The Corn Was Green,” n.d. [1969], The Corn Was Green
file, box 7, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

14

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

Lansing, Michigan, who had organized part of his 1969 journey, his twoweek trek retraced some of the previous year’s itinerary but moved into new
areas in Wisconsin and Iowa. He described his journey as “a mission of a
priest to his people.”47 He reported his thoughts on the trip:
The experience was tremendous, just like last year, and shows me clearly
that sections, huge segments of our population, are so neglected by our
society. The experience was a retreat for me, as it was last year, watching
the Mexican American give such wonderful and beautiful witness to his
faith in the midst of so many trials and sufferings.48

He suggested that if fair wages were paid workers they would have no need
to leave their homes and follow the crops. Calling for greater justice for the
oppressed, he encouraged the clergy of these Midwest dioceses to be
attuned to the plight of workers.49 He inspired other bishops, including
Gerald O’Keefe of Davenport, Arthur O’Neill of Rockford, and John
Franz of Peoria, who formed the “Board for Migrant Aid” to serve migrant
workers in Iowa and Illinois.50
Brownsville: Other Projects to Aid the Poor
In 1966 the Texas Council of Churches, the ecumenical group of
Protestant denominations, formed the Valley Ministry Program to assist
the poor in southeastern Texas. The destruction wrought by Hurricane
Beulah, which swept through this same region, including the Diocese of
Brownsville in September 1967, prompted a response from the Council,
which spent $57,000 in a relief program for the distribution of food, blankets, clothing, and other basic necessities in short supply because of the
storm and flooding. Local citizens carried out this relief effort, eventually
becoming a federation incorporated under the name “Colonias del Valle.”
When the Council went out of existence in December 1968, the Valley
Ministry Program was also dissolved. Thus, to fill the gap and provide for
local need Methodist Bishop Kenneth Pope, President of the Conference
of Churches, formed in February 1969, as the new manifestation of the
former Texas Council, appointed an interim committee with Medeiros

47. Texas Catholic Herald, July 17, 1970, August 7, 1970, September 11, 1970, Special
Works file, CAT.
48. Humberto Medeiros to Fr. Louis Colonnese, July 20, 1970, Appointments Active–
1970 file, box 48, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
49. Humberto Medeiros to “Dear Reverend Father,” August 6, 1970, Miscellaneous
Labor file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
50. Valley Catholic Witness 2(49) (August 2, 1970), CAT.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

15

FIGURE 2. Medeiros as Bishop of Brownsville visiting the home of a migrant
family, circa 1967 (Courtesy of Archdiocese of Boston Archives).

and two Protestant ministers, Rev. Sam Fiore (chair) and Rev. Howard
Blake. In the appointment letter to Fiore, Pope gave the committee “full
authority to direct the Valley Service Project Program. This authority
includes the staff of the Valley Service Project as well as the final word concerning our relationship with VISTA.”51
This smaller committee accepted the name change from Valley Ministry
to Valley Service Project with headquarters placed at St. John’s Catholic
Church in San Juan, Texas.52 For churches in the Rio Grande Valley aiming
to assist the region’s people, the Valley Service Project represented
a continual attempt to educate the churches on the social implications of
the Gospel, enabling persons of the various ethnic, religious, and economic

51. Harold Kilpatrick to Edward de la Rosa, March 31, 1969 Texas Catholic Conference Valley Service Project Miscellaneous Meeting file, box 8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers,
AAB. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) was a federal government program
designed to assist local communities that were poor.
52. Committee to Study Programs of Texas Conference of Churches, June 12, 1969,
Report file, box 8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

16

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR
groups to listen [emphasis original] to each other, informing congregations
of the Valley’s basic problems and possible solutions, encouraging clergy
and congregations to visit colonies and Barrios, to help them to listen to
these residents and see them as persons [emphasis original] instead of permitting them to assume that they “know what these people are like.”53

The interim committee initially met in March 1969. At regular meetings in various locations throughout the Valley, concerns were raised that
the new Valley Service Project needed to work in conjunction with the
efforts of the aforementioned Colonias de Valle. The committee aimed to
accomplish three specific projects: creation of a mobile medical clinic,
securing low cost housing for those in need, and to provide leadership
training for those in the local region. Unfortunately, achieving these goals
encountered some significant hurdles. Local Valley people distrusted the
Texas Conference of Churches and were suspicious of the ecumenical
movement in general, especially Catholics’ participation inaugurated since
the Second Vatican Council ended four years earlier. Moreover, some who
worked with the Project did not fully appreciate or recognize the area’s
social and economic problems, especially for the Mexican migrant workers.
Lastly, a belief prevailed that churches should “stick to the gospel” and not
get involved with secular and controversial issues.54 Nevertheless in June
1970, only a few months before Medeiros left to become archbishop of
Boston, a positive report on the Project’s effect on the region was issued:
Good is occurring in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, just as quickly, however I must add that the Conference’s program there, the Valley Service
Project—is just getting into gear. We are muchly blessed with the leadership of Father Flores and the knowledgeable and dedicated consultation afforded us by Sam Fiore, Howard Blake and Bishop Medeiros.55

While assisting with the Valley Service Project, Medeiros initiated an
effort to build low-income housing that would bring him much joy yet
much consternation during the years ahead. In March 1968 he announced
that the Diocese of Brownsville would sponsor construction of 200 lowcost homes. Set to cost $10,000 each, these units (100 in each town) were
to be constructed in two locations, La Merced Homes in Mercedes, and El
Rosario Homes in Mission. Both projects sought to serve migrant workers,

53. Final Summary Report, September 3, 1968–July 30, 1969, Staff Report Valley
Service Project Committee file, box 9, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.
54. Ibid.
55. Report of Executive Director, Texas Conference of Churches, June 8, 1970, Executive Director Reports to Board of Directors file, box 8, Brownsville, Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

17

“moving . . . [them] away from shanty quarters to better homes.”56 Families
with incomes of less than $3000 annually would qualify as new residents.
The program would be administered through the Rent Supplemental Program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
homes were ready for occupancy by late June 1969. In support of the project, the local diocesan newspaper commented, “By making it possible for
more families to have good housing and at the same time have enough
resources left to raise their families decently, the Church’s practicing one
of the works of mercy.”57
The Boston Years
Low Income Housing

In September 1970, shortly after returning from his aforementioned
second migrant tour, Medeiros received word of his appointment as the
Archbishop of Boston, succeeding the ailing Cardinal Richard Cushing.
He was installed on October 7 in Boston’s Cathedral of the Holy Cross.
Many warm wishes but equally some suspicions greeted his arrival. As the
first non-Irish ethnic ordinary in Boston since the departure of the first,
the French native Bishop Jean Cheverus in 1823, Medeiros’ cultural background and immigrant accent made him a target for the many Irish
Catholics who historically held significant influence in the archdiocese.
While his welcome might not have been as enthusiastic as expected, he
immediately began to minister to God’s poor, continuing some efforts
from his days in Brownsville and taking new initiatives.58
Low-income housing with the federal government funding originated during the New Deal. The U. S. Housing Act of 1937 established
the public housing program. After World War II a coalition of labor,
church, and civil rights groups served as strong advocates for low-income
housing, but this alliance broke down in the 1960s leading to a severe
shortage in housing for the poor. In 1978 the National Low Income
Housing Coalition was formed as an informal but vocal advocate for lowincome housing while providing information on various housing programs to those who could utilize them.59 Non-profit groups, as well as

56. Texas Catholic Herald, August 7, 1970, Special Works file, Medeiros Papers, CAT.
57. Valley Catholic Witness Volume 2(22), June 29, 1969.
58. Father William Joy, interview by the author, January 10, 2019.
59. Cushing Dolbeare, “The Low-Income Housing Crisis,” in America’s Housing Crisis:
What is to be Done?, ed. Chester Hartman (Boston, 1983), 36, 54.

18

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

community-based organizations, were viewed as the vehicles to meet a
broad range of housing needs throughout the country. As the housing
advocate Cushing Dolbeare states, “Society has a fundamental responsibility to assure that everyone living in this country is able to obtain decent
housing at affordable costs.”60
Advocates provided strong rationale to create more low-income
housing units. According to data from housing surveys conducted
between 1970 and 1980 the median income for homeowners during this
decade rose 104% (from $9700 to $19,800), but median home value
during the same period tripled (from $17,100 to $51,300). Thus, affordability, one of the two significant concerns for low-income housing (the
other being quality of housing), declined.61 This situation prompted the
sociologist Michael Stegman to add another reason for homeownership:
“to the extent that home equity is an asset and constitutes wealth, home
ownership assistance would remedy current inequalities in the opportunity to accumulate wealth.”62 In the early 1980s, Cushing Dolbeare concluded: “While housing costs rose generally [between 1970 and 1980]
both the amount and the impact of the increase were greatest for lowincome households. . . . Thus, there is a wide and growing ‘house gap’ for
many low-income people.”63
The need for low-income housing combined with Medeiros’ general
outreach to the poor prompted him in April 1971 to announce a diocesan
housing policy and sponsorship program. Church-owned property, where
it was feasible, would be used to develop up to six housing projects for lowand moderate-income families. These homes “will be exemplary in their
environmental quality and responsiveness to human needs, that will stand
as highly visible examples of church leadership in an important social
cause; and that will eventually be owned by the users themselves” [emphasis original].64 In a pastoral letter, he expressed his philosophy that undergirded his advocacy:
Another scandalous indignity is suburban opposition to low and middle
income housing which in effect restricts the poor, especially minority

60. Ibid., 49.
61. Ibid., 30–31.
62. Michael Stegman, More Housing, More Fairly: Report of the 20th Century Fund Task
Force on Affordable Housing (New York, 1991), 40.
63. Dolbeare, “Low-Income Housing,” 33.
64. “A Housing Program for the Archdiocese of Boston,” October 1971, Archdiocesan
Housing Program 1971–72 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

19

groups, to the cities. Even in the last legislative session in Boston, there
was agitation for repeal of the law enacted to open up the suburbs to the
poor. In effect, the message being received by the poor is that a comfortable majority is telling them to rebuild their lives on the hopeless decay
of the past.65

Springing certainly from his own personal experience, Medeiros,
besides looking toward racial minorities as victims of discrimination,
championed the needs of immigrants. He especially noted an influx of
Puerto Rican families into the communities of Roxbury and North Dorchester, located in the southern regions of Boston.66 He consistently argued
against those who suggested that placing low income housing in affluent
suburban areas would lead to a devaluation of property. Such thinking, he
suggested, restricted the poor to areas of squalor. He forcefully defended
his ideas and the people who would best be served:
We casually referred to the “problem of public housing” or the “black
problem,” or the “Puerto Rican problem,” or the “Chicano problem,” or
the Indian problem,” or the “Portuguese problem”; forgetting that these
children of God are expected to accept what is said about them by the
majority. Soon they begin to feel they do constitute a problem. Have we
ever reflected how a man feels being “a problem?” What a potential for
human degradation! Moreover, abstractions and generalizations cannot
convey the appalling living conditions which make housing a matter of
great urgency to millions of Americans.67

Similarly, Medeiros saw the need for racial integration within these lowincome housing projects. He was warned that pushing integration raises
tensions and “threatens not only the public housing community, but may
lead to outbreaks of racial violence which could endanger the entire city.”68
Nonetheless, as with his strong advocacy for busing to achieve racial inte65. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” 576–77.
66. Medeiros relied on the Spanish Apostolate within the archdiocese to advocate for
Hispanics, a group he obviously favored based on his personal experience in Brownsville. As
one example, he referred to correspondence between members of the Spanish Apostolate as
evidence for his advocacy: “As you know despite poor housing and worse job opportunities
the influx of Puerto Rican families to the Roxbury-North Dorchester area continues to
increase. The outlook for a better life for these families remains bleak as long as there is continued government failure to provide new housing and work opportunit[ies] for them.” See
Gerry Hickey to Fr. Dan Sheehan, February 1, 1972, Spanish Apostolate file, box 70,
Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
67. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” 540.
68. Robert Kiley to Humberto Medeiros, June 6, 1980, Cardinal Medeiros Memos
1980 file, box 97, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

20

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

gration in schools,69 so too did he believe that integration was best for
neighborhoods.
Medeiros held that all means at his disposal should be used to accomplish his goal described as a “work of mercy begun by Christ and entrusted
to His Church on earth.”70 He once stated, “Justice and its pursuit are not
the sole responsibility of the few; they are the task of all.”71 In a speech to
international real estate executives he was more specific in calling for a
community effort in the cause of low-income housing:
Having established three residential communities of mixed income, integrated housing that is cooperatively owned by the resident families, we
believe that people of good will, in private industry and in the public
sector, working together with imagination, sensitivity and determination
can and will make the difference.72

After months of planning, Medeiros announced his overall plan for
constructing low-income housing in the archdiocese. The plan provided for
five consecutive phases: (1) Choosing an appropriate site, (2) Formation of
neighborhood and development groups, (3) Acquisition of the necessary
re-zoning or variance from towns where housing was planned, (4) Organization of tenants and assessment of their needs, including design acceptance by tenants and sponsors, and (5) Construction of the homes.73 He
appointed Rev. Michael Groden, Assistant Director of the Office for
Urban Apostolate, to oversee the low-income housing project. Viewing the
economic mix of people who would benefit from this project, Groden
commented that “While it is not the responsibility of the Church to be a
massive supplier of housing, its role is to be a pioneer in areas where society
has not assumed its responsibility.”74
To obtain land for his proposed housing project, Medeiros sent letters
to various parishes and religious institutions informing them of the new
69. An analysis of Medeiros’ advocacy for the infamous busing program of Judge
Arthur Garrity in Boston is found in Richard Gribble, CSC, “Cardinal Humberto Medeiros
and the Desegregation of Boston’s Public Schools,” Journal of Church and State 48, no. 2
(Spring 2006), 327–53.
70. Humberto Medeiros, “Men’s Cities and God’s Poor,” 577.
71. Humberto Medeiros, “Remarks,” August 30, 1974, Archdiocesan Family Housing
file, box 56, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
72. Humberto Medeiros, Address, August 2, 1981 Welcome to Massachusetts file, box
58, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
73. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 148.
74. Quincy Patriot Ledger n.d. [November 1971], Archdiocesan Housing Projects
1971–72 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

21

archdiocesan housing project and stating that some of their land may
become a possible site for these homes. He requested that recipients contact Groden to discuss the possibility of the voluntary use of their land,
stating: “It is my hope that Religious Orders as well as Parishes will voluntarily collaborate with us whenever feasible. I feel that it is important for
all the various members of the Body of Christ in the Archdiocese to share
in helping to resolve the critical housing shortage.”75
Medeiros’ proposed housing project, for which he utilized all his
resources, received support and criticism from various quarters within the
archdiocese. The secretary to the Plymouth Vicariate Human Rights Committee, wrote to Medeiros “wish[ing] to commend you for your efforts to
answer housing needs for low income and poor families.”76 A sharply negative
response reflected views of opponents of using Church funds: “I disapprove of
using money placed in collection baskets being used on such a foolhardy venture. The money that was collected was meant to propagate the faith and to
maintain [a] silent body of our Church, the Archdiocese of Boston.”77
While some thought Medeiros’ project misguided, the need for outreach to the poor guided him as it had throughout his priestly and Episcopal career. As project overseer, Groden originally planned six sites for the
proposed homes, but four locations—Lexington, North Andover, Beverly,
and Scituate—were eventually chosen. The third of the aforementioned
five phases of the project, namely, working with local governments on
obtaining proper rezoning of selected lands, proved to be one of the most
difficult of hurdles. In 1973 in Lexington, for example, local city officials
denied a rezoning change to build sixteen units of low- and moderateincome housing on land donated by St. Brigid’s Parish. The major complaint was the perception that property values in the area would decrease,
and many residents did not want “poor people” in their neighborhoods.
This discriminatory comment reflected the general public’s attitude toward
low-income people. As the professor of Urban Studies, J.S. Fuerst, commented about the challenge of changing public perceptions, “[it] must be
beaten, pounded and drummed into the general public mind” to residents
and potential residents “that the program is for low- and moderate-income

75. Humberto Medeiros, to Sister Helen Lyons, SND, November 21, 1972, Archdiocesan Housing Project 1971–72 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
76. Rita Revil to “Your Excellency” [Medeiros] November 20, 1971, Archdiocesan
Housing Projects 1971–72 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
77. Joseph Smith to Cardinal Medeiros, April 19, 1977, Massachusetts Catholic Conference 1977–78 file, box 65, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

22

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

workers [emphasis original], for workers who cannot afford private, unsubsidized housing.”78
Despite the opposition from city officials, upon appeal and through
support from the Lexington United Methodist Church, the proper permissions were obtained. Similarly, in North Andover construction was delayed
but eventually completed once the various permissions were secured.
Despite the opposition an Archdiocesan News Memorandum states,
Though it has met with considerable opposition in several communities,
the housing program continues to enjoy the Cardinal’s support as an
effort consistent with his views on social and economic integration and
with the exemplary use of the Church’s human and material resources.79

After successfully completing projects in Lexington and North
Andover, the enterprise moved to Beverly in 1974, with Medeiros
announcing a ninety-eight unit development in the city. In his announcement he stated:
It is my earnest desire that this housing, and these developments that will
follow, should not only provide some much-needed housing for families,
but be a concrete reminder to the wider metropolitan community that
equal justice for all depends upon equal opportunity; that to provide
equal opportunity is everyone’s responsibility, that equal opportunities in
housing, in jobs, and education, are profoundly inter-related.80

As occurred in the previous locations, the Beverly project also stirred opposition. On October 15, 1973 the Zoning Appeals Board of Beverly rejected
the petition to build housing on a fourteen-acre plot of archdiocesan land.
However, the State Department of Community Affairs ordered the Beverly Zoning Board to grant the archdiocese the needed permit, basing its
decision on the anti-snub zoning law, stating that Beverly’s refusal was
“unreasonable and not consistent with local needs.”81 Still, the Beverly
project had its supporters, seeing it as a model that should be followed.
One Beverly resident voiced a typical comment:
78. J.S. Fuerst, “The Crisis in Public Housing,” in Crisis in Urban Housing, ed. Grant
S. McClellan (New York, 1974), 52.
79. News Memorandum, August 30, 1974, Archdiocesan Family Housing file, box 56,
Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
80. Humberto Medeiros Remarks, August 30, 1974, Archdiocesan Family Housing
file, box 56, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
81. News Clipping, May 14, 1974, Archdiocesan Housing Project 1974–75 file, box
59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

23

Northridge [Beverly] will be a success, it already is a triumph of good
over the forces of cynicism, indifference, apathy and despair. If Northridge is not doing the Lord’s work, I do not know what is. As a “first in
Massachusetts” I believe it will multiply, not unlike loaves and fishes.82

Despite opposition, Medeiros doggedly pursued his housing effort, believing it not the primary role but nonetheless an important aspect of the
Church’s work. While in the midst of his battle against those who opposed
his low-income housing plans, he stated in a homily:
The Archdiocese of Boston has struggled mightily over the past seven
years to provide cooperatively-owned housing for low and moderate
income families in several communities. Such efforts are not always
well received by local residents, but it is the task of the Church, in
season and out of season, in word and indeed to preach and to live the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that gospel teaches us to shelter the
homeless and to do for our least brothers or sisters what we would do
for the Lord.83

Medeiros’ efforts to bring adequate housing to low- and middleincome people in Lexington, North Andover, and Beverly, while receiving
some pushback from individuals and most especially zoning appeals
boards, were nonetheless successful, but his efforts in Scituate brought
forth a tidal wave of opposition from all sides leading to a great test of
character for Medeiros. As with the projects north of Boston—Lexington,
North Andover, and Beverly—Medeiros sought to utilize church land for
his proposed homes. In Scituate he targeted five acres of land belonging to
St. Mary of the Nativity parish and originally intended as a cemetery but
was never put to that use. As with previous projects the archdiocese ran
afoul of a local jurisdiction concerning zoning changes. J.S. Fuerst
addressed this problem in a general way: “Public housing is in trouble
because . . . real estate and conservative communities, joined most of the
time by media, have categorized public housing as a mark of second-class
citizenship and have been able to restrict it to the worst sites and worst
conditions.”84 Nevertheless, appealing to the “anti-snub zoning act” the
state granted the archdiocese’s request, and on April 4, 1977 the land was
transferred to the Planning Office of the archdiocese.85
82. V.A. Fulmer to Michael Groden, August 15, 1975, Archdiocesan Housing Project
1974–75 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
83. Humberto Medeiros, Homily, March 14, 1977, Cambridge file, box 57, BostonMedeiros Papers, AAB.
84. Fuerst, “The Crisis in Public Housing,” 48.
85. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 152–56.

24

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

Vocal opposition to the plan began almost immediately. Scituate
parishioners were especially disturbed that Medeiros was asking them
for something he wanted but without addressing concerns they had
voiced in the past. Specifically two incidents involving alcoholic priests
at the parish had caused scandal and brushes with the law.86 William
Helmick, Medeiros’ secretary, informed him about parishioners: “They
now wonder why the Archdiocese is pushing so hard and so forcefully
on this housing proposal, which in the opinion of many is not a clearcut moral question, when the Archdiocese did not act forcefully on an
issue which involved priests was causing scandal and doing harm.”87
Furthermore, parishioners asked why the parish council was not properly consulted about this initiative. While the five-acre parcel of land in
question seemed to be part of corporation sole, nonetheless the parish
had not been compensated.88 One parishioner proposed to Medeiros
that the land be sold to the town of Scituate to be used for a needed
cemetery.89
The controversy in Scituate grew greater with time. Helmick advised
Medeiros that parishioners’ animus was directed at him for precipitating an
unnecessary crisis. Local Catholics had already experienced sufficient fallout from the archdiocese’s above-mentioned failures to act on past scandalous situations. Moreover, more consternation arose when those favorable to the plan were referring to those opposed to it as racists, bigots, and
similar pejorative labels. Many believed that legitimate reasons justified
opposition to the plan. When the local Scituate zoning board turned down
the archdiocese’s original request and the cardinal appealed, people reacted
negatively. Again, Helmick informed Medeiros “The threatened court
action is seen by these people as an excessive use or misuse of your power,
and as evidence that you lack understanding of other legitimate issues
involved.”90 One priest asked Medeiros to drop his request: “No doubt

86. Ibid.
87. William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, July 16, 1973, Archdiocesan Housing Program 1973 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
88. In 1897 the Massachusetts General (Supreme) Court established the Archbishop
of Boston as a Corporation Sole. Thus, the Archbishop enjoyed the latitude to utilize church
property as he desired. Essentially, he had legal control of the land and could do with it what
he wanted.
89. Raymond Sisk to Humberto Medeiros, December 11, 1972, Archdiocesan Housing Projects 1971-72 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
90. William Helmick to Humberto Medeiros, Memorandum, July 16, 1973, Archdiocesan Housing Program 1973 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

25

your side will win, but loss of goodwill and the increasing hostility is not
worth it.”91 Medeiros responded,
As we both know, the feelings and sentiments generated among people
over the issue of housing for low and moderate income families is often
strong on both sides. Though good Christians would concur with the
Lord’s mandate that we must shelter the homeless, many would disagree
with the best manner of accomplishing this worthy and necessary end;
that all of God’s people be adequately and safely housed. Such disappointment is inevitable. At the same time, we must be able to move
beyond debate at some point and act in a manner as to give hope to our
poorer brothers and sisters.92

Thus, Medeiros pressed forward writing to a local real estate agent and significant financial supporter of the archdiocese:
The decision to continue our efforts to build the 40 townhouses for low
and moderate income families in the Scituate was not arrived at quickly
or arrogantly. We decided to proceed after thoughtful prayer. Though in
such matters, one can never be absolutely sure of the wisdom of each
decision, one must act with courage and humility asking always for the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. I am quite aware that many Scituate residents do not want low and moderate income housing on this site or any
site and we must respect their views. At the same time, as followers of
Christ we must continuously hear the Word of God and live by it.93

Although Medeiros had a clear legal path to begin construction, delays
ensued. Five parish council members sued him charging that he violated
the trust in seeking to build housing on land designated for different purposes. Eventually on February 21, 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the archdiocese. Nonetheless, it was suggested to parishioners that
they bring their suit to the Archdiocesan Tribunal. Rather inexplicably but
certainly out of his spirit of fairness, Medeiros allowed the case to go forward. Thus, in March 1980, the Metropolitan Tribunal’s report concluded
that since the parishioners had never taken action to utilize the subject land
for a cemetery, the parish should be freed from this obligation. Therefore,
no evidence was introduced that the plaintiffs’ wishes alone should be considered. The Tribunal then stated that the consultation leading to the
91. Msgr. Mark Keohane to “Your Eminence” Medeiros, October 8, 1977, Archdiocesan Planning Office 1977 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
92. Humberto Medeiros to Msgr. Mark Keohane, November 8, 1977, Archdiocesan
Planning Office 1977 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
93. Humberto Medeiros to Jack Conway, May 30, 1973, Archdiocesan Planning Office
1973 file, box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.

26

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

housing project was flawed. The Tribunal voted three to one not to allow
the housing project to move forward. In the ruling, Tribunal officials
declared, “An injustice would be done if the transfer of title to the land
were done against the will of the moral person—St. Mary of the Nativity
Parish.” 94 This decision paved the way for parishioners to meet and vote on
the proposal. In a consultation conducted by the Tribunal, they rejected
the housing project by a vote of 751 to 210.95 Medeiros acceded to parishioners’ wishes, commenting with some resignation: “While I am always
pleased to serve the cause of justice and observe the canons of Church Law
in regard to ministry as your Archbishop, I must admit that this is also a
moment of sadness and disappointment for me.”96 He asked parishioners
to utilize the land for a cemetery immediately. He sought their cooperation
to help him find an alternative site in Scituate. Sociologist Doris Holleb
summarized the frustration that Medeiros most assuredly felt: “Housing is
a hydra-headed beast. After three decades a decent home and suitable
living environment for every American family is still an elusive goal.”97
Medeiros’ defeat in Scituate did not end the story, as he remained
committed to providing low income housing for the region. When he was
informed that Pitcock Farm owned by Alfred Gomes was for sale, he contacted the owner who agreed to sell the property, a parcel of 8.68 acres.
After the transfer of title to the archdiocese in August 1980, on May 11,
1981 the Scituate Zoning Board of Appeals approved construction of
sixty-four housing units. Ground was broken in October 1982, and the
first residents moved in during the early summer of 1983. By the time of
his death on September 17, 1983, the project had been completed. In a
note of irony and somewhat demonstrating that he was correct in targeting
Scituate for this project, 70% of the first inhabitants were town residents.98
At the end of this controversy he commented:

94. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Scituate Land Case, n.d. [1980], Statement of
Scituate Land Case file, box 57, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
95. Lukas, Common Ground, 401. Lukas suggests that Medeiros’ action in allowing the
Metropolitan Tribunal to hear the case was a good example of the Archbishop’s incapacity to
use his authority effectively. He further suggests that this is evidence that Medeiros was not
up to the task. See Boston Globe News Clipping, April 29, 1980 found in Planning Office for
Urban Affairs File, Box 59, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
96. Humberto Medeiros, Statement Scituate Land Case, n.d. [1980], Statement of
Scituate Land Case file, box 57, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
97. Dorios B. Holleb, “A Decent Home and Suitable Living Environment,” The Annals
of the American Academy of Poltical and Social Sciences 435 (January 1978), 111.
98. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 168–71; Planning Office for Urban
Affairs Report, October 26, 1981, Planning Office for Urban Affairs file, box 59, Boston-

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

27

The Archdiocese of Boston has over the years, attempted to respond to
the need for adequate low-income housing. . . . Naturally, the Church
alone cannot provide a significant quantitative response to the need for
adequate family housing. That is not our primary role, nor do we have the
financial or technical resources to build all the homes that are needed. It
is, however, a responsibility to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and
its implications for any just society, and in the light of that gospel, to analyze as objectively as we can the social justice issues that lead to inadequate housing, the denial of human rights and the fact of needless human
suffering. The Archdiocese of Boston will continue to seek to have a
qualitative impact on the issues of affordable family housing.99
Prison Reform

While lacking the high profile of his endeavors on behalf of farm
workers and low-income housing, Medeiros saw prison reform as an
important aspect of his general advocacy for the poor. His efforts, most
notably through a pastoral letter “On Penal Reforms,” just over a year after
his arrival in Boston, his appointment of a Permanent Commission on
Prison Reform, personal outreach to individual prisoners, and strong condemnation of capital punishment attest to his advocacy for this population
based on the dignity of every human person.100
Medeiros’ ideas were consistent with those of other advocates for
prison reform such as Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpart who articulated the need “to upgrade society’s sentences and correctional practices.”
Such humanitarian interests connected improving living conditions in correctional institutions with the aim of reducing incidents of prison violence
and ultimately reducing the return of ex-prisoners to prison after committing new crimes.101
Prison reform advocates believed the public suffered from social
amnesia in failing to recognize that past prison practices had failed to
accomplish what the system was designed to achieve. A widespread belief
held that punishment and not treatment was likely to deter future crime.

Medeiros Papers AAB. The 64 units were broken down as follows: 24 one-bedroom, 19 twobedroom, 17 three-bedrooms and 4 four-bedroom units.
99. Humberto Medeiros, Statement, March 10, 1983, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital file,
box 58, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
100. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 229.
101. Robert Jeffrey and Stephen Woolpart, “Work Furlough as an Alternative to Incarceration: An Assessment of Its Effects on Recidivism and Social Cost,” Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 65, no. 3 (1975), 405.

28

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

Many thought this conservative ideology partially contributed to conditions present in the prison system.102 Clinical psychologist Edward Zamble
described the challenge: “[T]he primary aim of prison should be to change
patterns of criminal behavior in the individuals imprisoned and attempts at
prison reform should be guided by the process of individual reform.”103
Medeiros never wavered from his support for prison reform. In
December 1971, he issued “On Penal Reform,” in an effort to stand as an
advocate for prisoners. Citing the prominent image in the Book of Genesis
that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, he called for
humane treatment for prisoners based on new findings from the behavioral
sciences. Echoing the ideas of the aforementioned advocates for prison
reform, he wrote:
While prisoners experience the fearful deprivation of their freedom, every
effort must be made to instill or restore their sense of worth and dignity
as persons; to provide the educational and vocational skills that they may
lack, to counsel, encourage, guide, and develop an attitude of responsibility that will enable them to function happily and constructively in a free
community upon their release.104

In March 1973 Medeiros created a Permanent Commission on Penal
Reform.105 Concerning its objectives, he noted, “They [the Commission]
have my mandate to study and implement the complex and involved goals
of my Pastoral Letter and my ‘Reflections on Penal Reform.’”106 Later that

102. Thomas G. Bloomberg and Karol Lucken, American Penology: A History of Control,
2nd ed. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2010), 261; Peter J. Benekos and Alida V. Merlo, Corrections: Dilemmas and Directions (Anderson Publishing Company, 1992), ix.
103. Edward Zamble, “Behavioral and Psychological Considerations in the Success of
Prison Reform,” in Are Prisons Any Better? Twenty Years of Correctional Reform, ed. John W.
Murphy (Newberry Park, California, 1990), 140. Other contemporaries of Medeiros voiced
a similar concern: “Correctional processes in the United States are today in the midst of
change. Approximately 95% or more of all offenders who are convicted of serious crimes and
are thereafter sent to penal or correctional institutions eventually return to society, most often
as hardened criminals. Therefore, it is obvious that our correctional institutions have, for the
most part, failed to achieve society’s objectives.” See Neal Miller and Walter Jenesen, Jr.,
“Reform of Federal Prison Industries: New Opportunities for Public Offenders,” The Justice
System Journal I, no. 1 (Winter 1974), 1.
104. Humberto Medeiros, “On Penal Reform,” December 1971, in Whatever God
Wants, (Boston, 1984), 670–71.
105. Humberto Medeiros to Daniel Hart, March 2, 1973, Priest Senate file, box 68,
Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB.
106. Humberto Medeiros Statement on Penal Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan
News Bureau, Boston Pilot Archives (hereafter BPA) Braintree, Massachusetts.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

29

year the Commission’s public statement concluded that the present system
degrades and demeans and that “our prisons symbolize and typify our
inhumanity to one another”; it stated further: “It is time for our society to
make a searching self-examination of its individuals and collective conscience regarding the traditional concept of prison itself in the light of the
teachings of the Church, regarding the dignity of man redeemed by
Christ.”107 The statement clearly connected poverty and racism, two
important aspects of outreach to the poor, and the general problem with
crime. It concluded, “Only if these issues are dealt with directly will we
begin to understand why prisons are populated largely by poor and
exploited people.”108 The Commission and Medeiros personally called on
all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation, even nonbelievers, to candidly
evaluate the prevailing injustices, inadequacies, and weaknesses in the
penal system in an effort to seek reform.109
Medeiros’ pledge to support prisoners’ rights was often manifested in
his personal intervention on behalf of incarcerated individuals who sought
his assistance. From the outset of his tenure in Boston, he received requests
from families to review the cases of their loved ones who were in prison.
One example, was the case of Charles McCarty convicted in 1948 of firstdegree murder and sentenced to death. In July 1951 his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Just prior to the publication of his pastoral letter,
“On Penal Reform,” Medeiros informed McCarty’s sister that he would
review the case and that the aforementioned Permanent Commission on
Penal Reform would be created.110 In correspondence with another
inmate, Jon Taylor, who had read Medeiros’ pastoral letter, the archbishop
commented, “I realize that there are many problems to solve and I realize
that solutions are not easily found. However, I feel that, with God’s grace,
the situations in our prisons can and will be bettered.”111
Another important issue associated with prison reform involved the
issue of inmate furloughs. Nationally the prison furlough program was
labeled as “both controversial and confusing” but overall was successful in
Massachusetts. In 1963 only two states had prison furlough programs, but
107. Prison Reform Statement, n.d. [1973], Priest Senate file, box 68, Boston
Medeiros Papers, AAB.
108. Ibid.
109. Ibid.
110. Humberto Medeiros to Phyllis Ryan, November 23, 1971, Correctional Institutions file, box 63, Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB.
111. Humberto Medeiros to Jon Taylor, January 1, 1972, Correctional Institutions file,
box 63, Boston Medeiros Papers, AAB.

30

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

by 1976, forty-seven states and the District of Columbia had adopted
them.112 Nearly a decade after Medeiros’ death, Anthony Travismo, the
American Correctional Association’s executive director, commented “The
furlough program is a good program. It is neither liberal nor conservative.
Furloughs boost inmate morale, and we need every boost we can get. They
are ninety-nine and forty-four hundredths percent successful.”113 Massachusetts initiated a furlough program for first-degree life sentence inmates
in November 1972.114 Primarily inmates were granted temporary release to
lecture to various groups on crime and prison life. The Boston Globe
reported in September 1973 that the furlough program by then had
allowed a total of forty first-degree life sentence murderers to be granted a
total of 184 furloughs with only one escape, a 99.5% success rate.
Medeiros strongly supported the furlough program. He indirectly
addressed this issue in a pastoral letter, anticipating the Massachusetts furlough law by about one year:
A concerned public must face up to its responsibility of supporting meaningful legislative proposals in the field of corrections. Apathetic unconcern or timid misgivings can completely undermine the sincerest efforts
at making needed changes. A competent and concerned legislature,
guided by wise, thoughtful and progressive recommendations from professionals in the area of corrections and parole, advised by experts in
human behavior and treatment, and responsive to enlightened and
responsible suggestions of the prisoners themselves, will effectively provide the changes in law that prison reform so desperately needs.115

More directly, when the Archdiocesan Commission on Penal Reform
issued its 1973 statement, he added an endorsement of furloughs: “if properly structured and administered, [are] a legitimate extension or interpretation of my stated sentiments that ‘visits from friends and family be as frequent, pleasant, relaxed and warmly human as possible.’”116
Related to his overall advocacy for prison reform, Medeiros voiced
strong opposition to capital punishment. His ideas as expressed through
112. National Evaluation Program Phase I “Summary Furlough Program for Inmates,”
September 1976, United States Department of Justice, 1–2.
113. New York Times, October 12, 1988.
114. Boston Evening Globe, September 20, 1973, Correctional Institutions 1972–73 file,
box 63, Boston-Medeiros Papers, AAB.
115. Medeiros, “On Penal Reform,” 672.
116. Humberto Medeiros, “Statement on Penal Reform, June 9, 1973, Archdiocesan
News Bureau BPA.

RICHARD GRIBBLE, CSC

31

the statement of the Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts, published in
March 1982, did not question whether the state had the right to inflict the
death penalty, but instead questioned if it was morally right to exercise
such punishment or to restore it in places where it had been abrogated.
The bishops stated clearly that capital punishment contradicted their
moral vision:
Many are convinced that the imposition of the death penalty, brutal and
final as it is, contradicts the Gospel message. The Gospel proclaims that
no human life is without worth or beyond the possibility of conversion.
Many people contend that opposition to the death penalty, therefore, is
an affirmation of the oral of human life and an appeal for greater efforts
toward the establishment of a more humane and just society. We agree
with this position.117

Speaking directly against a proposed addition to the Massachusetts Constitution that would permit capital punishment, the Bishops’ Statement
argued that applying the death penalty was often unfair and discriminatory,
citing that the majority of those in prison and or on death row are poor,
young, and people of color. Those without financial means or members of
a racial or ethnic minority would be more likely to die, while those with
monetary resources, and thus able to afford better legal talent, often escape
such punishment.118 The bishops concluded:
We believe that long term sentences, life imprisonment and sentences
mandating restitution to the victims of crime or their families, are equally
strong deterrents. When punishment is sure and swift, it can be an effective crime deterrent. Accordingly, in the light of contemporary discussions within the Church itself, we believe that any reasonable doubt concerning the morality of capital punishment should be resolved in favor of
the right to life possessed by each and every human person, even persons
convicted of serious crime. Because of ethical and pastoral values, because
of the lack of probative arguments to the contrary and in keeping with
the “pro-life” stance we have articulated on so many other occasions, we,
the leaders of the four Catholic Dioceses, oppose the restitution of capital
punishment in this state.119

117. Statement by Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts on Capital Punishment,
March 5, 1982, Massachusetts Catholic Conference file, box 66, Boston Medeiros Papers,
AAB.
118. Ibid.
119. Ibid.

32

HUMBERTO MEDEIROS: ADVOCATE FOR THE POOR

Despite the bishops’ efforts, Massachusetts voters in November 1982
approved reinstituting the death penalty. It became law on December 22.120
Conclusion
Humberto Medeiros, priest and bishop, came to the United States at
age fifteen, an immigrant from the Azores. He arrived economically poor
but rich in faith. Initially as a priest in Fall River, Massachusetts, and then
through an Episcopal career from 1965 to 1983, in Brownsville and
Boston, he promoted a preferential option for those, as Jesus explains in
the Beatitudes, who are poor in spirit. Often he faced opposition in planning and executing his ideas, but nonetheless with courage and a devoted
spirit, went forth to meet the needs of those who for one reason or another
found themselves on the periphery of American society. In Brownsville he
fought for mostly Mexican immigrant farm workers to achieve a just wage
for their labors, worked with an ecumenical group to assist the local citizenry, and championed the construction of low-income housing for those
who needed it. In Boston, he worked to provide homes for the poor even
when some of his own priests were opposed. His advocacy for the poor was
also manifested through his efforts to secure reform in the Massachusetts
prison system. Humberto Medeiros believed that he must follow the
dictum “whatever God wants.” He heard and acted on the challenge of St.
James, “Be doers of the word and not merely hearers of the word who
deceive themselves” (James 1:22). Certainly, the world is better for the life
he lived and the ministry he performed.

120. Lescault, “In Season and Out of Season,” 232. Nevertheless, Massachusetts’ capital punishment statute was struck down in 1984 as a violation of due process, because it
allowed a death sentence only when the defendant had pleaded not guilty. The state legislature never passed a statute to reinstate capital punishment, despite support from then-Governor Michael Dukakis.

The American Catholic Historical Association:
A Centennial Appreciation, 1919–2019*
JOSEPH M. WHITE
This article addresses the founding of the American Catholic Historical
Association by Rev. Msgr. Peter Guilday in 1919 and highlights major
trends in its historical development over the century of its existence.
Keywords: American Catholic Historical Association, Peter
Guilday, John Tracy Ellis, Robert Trisco, American Historical
Association

A

t 10:00 a.m. on December 30, 1919, about fifty Catholics—mostly
priests, many of them educators—convened in “Parlor O” in Cleveland, Ohio’s magnificent 800-room Hollenden Hotel. The hotel was then
hosting the annual meeting of the American Historical Association
(AHA), the national-level professional organization of historians founded
in 1884. Rev. Peter Keenan Guilday, age thirty-five, the energetic Church
history professor at the nation’s pontifical institution for graduate studies,
The Catholic University of America, had organized the meeting and
invited attendees. He did so for the specific purpose of founding a national
Catholic historical association. He recruited Rt. Rev. Thomas C. O’Reilly,
vicar general of the Diocese of Cleveland and rector of its St. John’s Cathedral, to preside. He also secured J. Franklin Jameson, the acknowledged
“dean” among trained American historians, the first history Ph.D. produced at the Johns Hopkins University, and the long-serving editor of the
AHA’s American Historical Review, to speak to the gathering. Jameson
addressed what Guilday wanted him to say: Catholics should form a
national Catholic historical association. After Guilday’s presentation and
in response to his motion, the attendees voted to form the American
Catholic Historical Association (ACHA) “to promote interest in Catholic
history” and approved a constitution and bylaws modeled on those of the

* The article is a revised version of an address presented in a plenary session at the annual
meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association at Chicago, January 5, 2019, to
commemorate its centennial year. The author is Acting Editor of the Catholic Historical
Review. Email: whitef@cua.edu.

33

34

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

AHA that Guilday presented.1 All this was accomplished before adjourning for lunch.
This brief description of an inspiring event may sound like the early
chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Of course, historians know that no
eventful meeting held to make important decisions happens without extensive and lengthy preparation. That was certainly the case of the founding of
the American Catholic Historical Association. We will return to Parlor O
at the Hollenden Hotel later. But first!
What brought about the founding of what a later ACHA president
John Lukacs would call this “small but honorable” Association?2 Other
questions arise. Why should Catholics form a learned society similar to
ones founded by the early twentieth century—scarcely a common undertaking for American Catholics? What prompted a young diocesan priest to
plan such an event? In those days a young priest had little status and should
wait for Church authority to tell him what to do—not take initiatives on
his own. Of course, high Church officials then or later had scant interest
in promoting interest in historical scholarship related to the Church.
Who, then, is the founder, Peter Guilday? He was born in 1884—the
second of twelve children in his family—at Chester, Pennsylvania, in the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia. He attended local Catholic schools. Aspiring
to the diocesan priesthood, he enrolled at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary,
Philadelphia, in 1902. To conclude studies, from1907–09, he attended the
American College at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium and
was ordained a priest there in 1909. After a brief parish assignment in
Philadelphia, he returned to Louvain for graduate studies in Church history, as the Catholic University of America’s rector, Bishop Thomas
Shahan, arranged as part of his plan to launch graduate studies in Church
history there. In 1914, Guilday obtained the pontifical doctorate in ecclesiastical history, the first U.S. priest to do so. His dissertation on English
Catholic colleges on the continent was a fitting preparation for studying
American Catholicism of which he became the leading authority.3

1. “The Origins of the ACHA,” box 1, American Catholic Historical Association
Records, Archives of the Catholic University of America, hereafter ACUA.
2. John A. Lukacs, “The Historiographical Problem of Belief and of Believers: Religious
History in the Democratic Age,” Catholic Historical Review (hereafter CHR) 64 (1978), 164.
3. For biographical information, see Joseph M. White, “‘In the interest of true history’: The
Catholic Historical Review and the American Catholic Historical Association, 1915–69,” CHR,
101 (2015), 226–227. The following account draws from this detailed article. Guilday’s dissertation was published as The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent, 1558–1795 (London, 1914).

JOSEPH M. WHITE

35

FIGURE 1. 1909 Postcard of the Hollenden Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio, where founding members met to establish the American Catholic Historical Association,
December 30, 1919. (Wikimedia Commons)

In the late summer of 1914, Guilday, at age thirty, as planned, arrived
at Washington to join Catholic University’s School of Sacred Sciences faculty. He was its first academically trained professor of Church history,
which theologians had heretofore been teaching. Guilday was charged to
launch graduate studies in Church history. That this Catholic research university was just starting such a graduate program twenty-five years after its
opening with graduate programs in theology and other disciplines shows
the low priority there for studying the Catholic past.
The School of Sacred Sciences enrolled only priests since lay persons
could not earn pontifical degrees until the 1960s. In 1918, Guilday was
appointed to teach in the Department of History which became his academic home and where priests, religious, and lay people enrolled. He eventually trained thirty-five doctoral students in Church history—all either
priests or women religious—and over 100 MA students.
The idea marking his early career and forming the basis for so many
hopes was to implement “scientific history” at Catholic University. In studies at Louvain and in short stints at nearby German universities, he
absorbed what Leopold von Ranke, the founder of the modern academic
discipline of history, promoted: scientific history aiming for “how it actu-

36

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

ally happened”—wie es eigentlich gewesen ist. “Scientific” in the sense that
historical writing was based on documentary sources as critically examined
in the seminar—the historians’ equivalent to the laboratory for natural sciences. At Catholic University, he introduced the history seminar for a class
of graduate student priests. As he noted to a friend in his second year
teaching: “We are following the strictest German method of scientific
research, and it is a pleasure to see how these young Irish priests with an
Irish professor take to it like a duck to water.”4
Catholic historians had added support for objectivity from Pope Leo
XIII in his 1883 apostolic letter, Saepenumero Considerantes, on Church
history issued on the occasion of Vatican Archives’ opening to researchers:
“The first law of history is not to dare to utter falsehood; the second, not to fear to
speak the truth; and moreover, no room must be left for suspicion of partiality or
prejudice.” 5
Following these standards, Guilday produced massive biographies of
Archbishops John Carroll and John England, published in the 1920s, and
toiled for years on a biography of Archbishop John Hughes never completed. While at first teaching all branches of Church history at Catholic
University, professors for other areas of history had been added by the
1930s so by then he devoted himself entirely to American Catholic history.
When Guilday arrived at the University, in addition to teaching graduate students, the task of founding a historical journal awaited. By then
Catholic historical journals had been founded on a local basis. The American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, founded in 1884, had
published its Records of the American Catholic Historical Society. And the
United States Catholic Historical Society in New York had its Records and
Studies series. These publications often reprinted official documents, personal accounts, institutional records, and newspaper accounts related to the
U.S. Catholic past. These and other short-lived Catholic historical journals
were the work of amateurs aiming to preserve the memory of and celebrate
past Catholic achievements. At the time Catholics with graduate training
in history scarcely existed. The creation of local Catholic historical societies
sponsoring journals reflected the national trend of the founding of some
500 city, county, regional, and state historical societies through the early
twentieth century.

4. Guilday to Arthur Preuss, Washington, DC, December 3, 1915, box 1, Peter Guilday Papers, ACUA.
5. Colman J. Barry, ed., Readings in Church History (Westminster, MD, 1960–65), 1012.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

37

At the University—The Catholic University Bulletin—had published
learned articles of its faculty members in several disciplines until the founding of separate journals reduced to it to the university’s news publication by
World War I.
For Church history, Bishop Camillus Maes of Covington, Kentucky,
a Belgian native, Louvain-educated, and a strong episcopal supporter of
the university when there were few, suggested to University Rector Shahan
the founding of a Catholic historical journal.6 Shahan responded by
launching the quarterly Catholic Historical Review in April 1915 under
University auspices. The Review, then, is the nation’s oldest Catholic
learned journal. Shahan was listed as editor-in-chief until 1928, assisted by
a faculty board of associate editors including Guilday. But Guilday did the
work of recruiting authors, editing, and dealing with printers. At this stage,
the Review published articles and historic documents solely related to the
Americas. He shepherded it through its initial years and sought to market
it to the laity by contacting lay organizations with the aim of having its
leaders promote subscriptions.
From the Review’s beginning, Guilday contributed in each quarterly
issue the Notes and Comments section, in which he reported on historical
developments of interest to readers. Foremost, he used the section to articulate his own views on a range of subjects related to the academic study of
history, especially two aspects: (1) To advance the cause of collecting and
even publishing historical documents and (2) to found a national-level
American Catholic historical association where through conversation the
sharing of scholarship could happen. Its lack, he held, after 125 years of
“Catholic activities under an organized hierarchy” proved “our lack of
interest” in history.7
In response to advocating the collection of historical documents
through the Review, Catholics from “every quarter” of the nation sent
him “[o]ld portraits, old and rare books, letters and documents which
would otherwise lie neglected in parish houses and educational institutions.” This trend encouraged him. He noted, the “laudable obligation”
of “preserving all that remains, lest it perish as so much already has perished, wantonly, ignorantly or deliberately.”8 Such was one of his few

6. Peter Guilday to Walter Romig, Washington, DC, October 11, 1943, box 39, file 4,
Peter Guilday Papers, ACUA.
7. “Notes and Comments,” CHR, 1 (1915), 228–29.
8. Ibid.

38

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

public screeds against the enduring Catholic practice embedded in clerical culture of preserving the Church’s secrets by destroying records and
restricting access to existing ones.
For scientific scholarship in Church history to happen, of course, documents gathered in archives and accessible to scholars were essential. For
many dioceses and religious orders and institutions to allow researchers to
use their records was unthinkable to many Church officials. Given the
chaotic state of Catholic archives, promoting documentary collections was
Guilday’s preoccupation and took various forms through the years.
In urging formation of a Catholic historical society, he had his eyes on
the existing ones in Philadelphia and New York that collected historical
records in archives and published many. He also looked to a European
model—the national historical institutes of several Catholic nations
located in Rome that collected historic documents from archives in the
Eternal City.
In addition to the model of the local historical society, the American
Historical Association, the learned society of trained historians, furnished a
more influential model for him. In 1914 he attended his first AHA annual
meeting and noted only a few Catholics in attendance. On this occasion he
launched contacts with AHA leaders, especially its high-profile editor of
the American Historical Review, J. Franklin Jameson. He thereafter pursued
conversations with the nation’s leading historians at the annual meeting.
The foregoing background led to the founding event in Parlor O at the
Hollenden Hotel. Those Guilday invited to attend the ACHA founding
meeting—mostly priests and/or Review subscribers—generally lacked
graduate training in history. Nonetheless, they confirmed what Guilday
proposed as its character and purpose:
A distinctly Catholic organization with the definite object of promoting
interest in Catholic history both in this and other lands, of this and other
ages, seems necessary, if the Church is to be recognized in her true position as sacred and perpetual mother of all that is best and holiest in
modern civilization. . . .
An American Catholic Historical Association would arouse among
Catholics in this roseate land of opportunity an instinct of love and veneration for the religious history of the world. . . .

Guilday concluded in a rather triumphal fashion, the Association was
“[a]mbitious in design and essentially necessary in its concept, if the glori-

JOSEPH M. WHITE

39

ous annals of our Faith are to be made known in all their beauty to
Catholic and non-Catholic alike.”9
Guilday recognized that few of the Association’s founders were
engaged in “historical work.” Hence he aimed to attract as members “those
also who see in a correct knowledge of the Catholic past of the world the
right understanding of present problems, national, as well as international.”10 Membership was open to all—not just Catholics.
In establishing the ACHA, the constitution and bylaws that Guilday
composed and presented at the founding meeting were modeled after the
AHA’s. Similar to the AHA and other academic bodies, its elected officers
serving one-year terms included a president, vice president, secretary,
treasurer, and archivist; an executive council (officers ex officio and five
elected at the annual meeting). From the beginning, the ACHA affiliated
with the AHA—one of nine affiliates by 1929—and aimed to hold its
annual meeting with the AHA.11
Philadelphia physician, Lawrence J. Flick, longtime leader of the
American Catholic Historical Society there, was chosen first president.
From the beginning, at Guilday’s behest—only lay persons not priests—
served as ACHA president until 1966.
Distinguished historian Carlton J. H. Hayes of Columbia University
was chosen secretary, an office he ceded to Guilday in 1920, because Hayes
thought only a priest carried the influence needed to deal with so many
priest members. The bylaws were amended for the secretary and treasurer
to serve at the pleasure of the board. Guilday served as secretary until 1941.
A learned society characteristically publishes a journal for sharing
research for its members and with the academic world. In the Catholic Historical Review one was already at hand. The ACHA adopted the Review as
its official journal in 1921. Its policy of publishing articles only in Ameri-

9. “The American Catholic Historical Association,” CHR, 6 (1920), 13–14.
10. “American Catholic Historical Association” file, n.p., box 1, American Catholic
Historical Association Records, ACUA.
11. White, “‘In the interest of true history,’” CHR, 101 (2015), 238–239. In the interwar years the ACHA held its annual meeting with the AHA’s annual meeting except in
1924, 1926, 1929, 1933, and 1935 when it met with other Catholic associations. During
World War II, the AHA and ACHA did not meet for annual meetings in 1942 and after
the war in 1945. Instead ACHA members met only for the presidential luncheon in Washington, DC.

40

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

can history was then changed to include articles and reviews in all areas of
Catholic history.12
Once the ACHA was underway, Guilday aimed for members to participate in common efforts to promote the study of Church history. On
behalf of the ACHA, Rev. Paul Foik, C.S.C., librarian at the University of
Notre Dame, conducted a survey of diocesan records in 1922 that reveals
the challenges for historical research in U.S. Catholic history. Of about
100 U.S. dioceses then existing and surveyed, only twenty responded to a
questionnaire about their archival holdings.13 It is not clear if even they
would grant access for research. At this time and beyond, most diocesan as
well as religious community archives were off limits to historians. The pattern of destruction of Church records rather than preserve them was well
known. Despite his regular contact with the nation’s bishops, it is difficult
to determine if Guilday tried to have them open up access to their diocesan
archives. In 1938, after years of learning from other scholars and his own
graduate students about denial of access to Church records, he told the
Archivist of the United States: “I could tell you stories of destruction that
would raise the hair on your head. And of course canon law stands determinedly in the way of any central [Catholic] archives.”14
In 1924, Guilday organized ACHA committees on Archival Centers
for American Catholic History, Bibliography of Church History, Catholic
Historical Activities in the U.S., Manual of Catholic History Literature,
Manual of Historical Objections Made against the Church, Teaching of
Ecclesiastical History, and Textbook on Church History. The committees
were charged to produce guides in their area. A decade later, he reported the
committees simply had made little or no progress in any of these areas.15
Members—lay or clerical—were mostly educators with heavy teaching and
administrative duties and had little spare time for such projects.
Through the years as recorded in the ACHA annual reports and in
personal letters, Guilday expressed the need for several publications: A bibliography of American Catholic history so that scholars would know what
has been published in the field. With such a work, he would not need to
12. “Retrospect and Prospect,” CHR, 7 (1921), 4.
13. “Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting, American Catholic Historical Association, New Haven, Connecticut, December 27–30, 1922,” CHR, 9 (1923), 15–17.
14. Peter Guilday to R.F.D. Connor, Washington, DC, 2 February 1938, box 31, no.
3, Peter Guilday Papers, ACUA.
15. “Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association,
Washington, DC, December 26–29, 1934,” CHR, 21 (1935), 76.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

41

expend time answering inquirers’ steady stream of letters asking him to
recommend books in American Catholic history. He could simply recommend the bibliography, but he did not succeed in having one published.
He also wanted to produce an encyclopedia of American Catholic history,
but he could not secure a publisher or financial support.
In addition to the ACHA’s stated aim to “promote interest” in
Catholic history, Guilday occasionally articulated in annual reports the
aims not recorded at its founding. Since its founding era coincided with
waves of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant hostility across the nation in
the early twentieth century, Catholicism and Catholics were regarded with
hostility. In his 1928 annual report, after the U.S. presidential election in
which Catholic Alfred E. Smith was defeated in a landslide of antiCatholic propaganda, Guilday called to mind additional reasons beyond
“promoting interest” in Catholic history. To him, its founders recognized
“that in English-speaking lands the great terrain of misunderstanding and
controversy between Catholics and non-Catholics has ever been the field
of history.” Hence, he aimed “to create one central institute where all these
problems which cause antagonistic attitudes in our people, can be calmly
studied and evaluated by our own scholars and by the ever-increasing
number of those who are devoted to historical truth.”16
Then and through his years as ACHA secretary, he aimed for the
“increase of knowledge in the historical past of the Church among
Catholics and non-Catholics by publishing the results of the individual
scholar’s study.” And from the personal contacts made at the annual meeting held with the AHA, he aimed for the “mutual help and encouragement
Catholics and non-Catholic scholars would receive from these annual
gatherings where all can meet under the aegis of history and find common
and mutual grounds for respect, reverence, and esteem for the great
Mother Church of the ages.”17
As the ACHA approached the milestone of ten years’ existence, its
membership reached 634 by 1929. Membership was largely drawn from
the Catholic population centers of the Northeast and Midwest. Few
women joined in its early decades.
Guilday, having ceded the role of lead or managing editor to his doctoral student and Catholic University history professor, Rev. Patrick
16. “Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting, American Catholic Historical Association, Indianapolis, December 27–30, 1928,” CHR, 15 (1929), 7.
17. Ibid., 5.

42

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

Browne, in 1921, found fault with the journal’s lowered quality by 1928.
He feared it becoming a popular journal. By then Browne virtually ran the
journal himself with no discernible role for the editorial board. That year,
Guilday asked the new University rector, Msgr. James H. Ryan, to transfer
ownership of the Review to the ACHA to establish control over the journal. Ryan refused, but he dismissed Browne and appointed Guilday editor.
The latter devised in 1929 its present organization: editor and associate
editors located at Catholic University and a board of advisory editors scattered around the country and at the University. For decades, the editors
met quarterly and organized what is now known as peer review of the articles submitted for publication. Most articles in the interwar years were
revised versions of papers presented at the annual meetings.
As the tenth anniversary of the ACHA approached, Guilday’s idea of
“one central organization for the historical activities of all Catholics, cleric
and lay, in the United States,” which he had proposed as early as 1924,
would be located at Catholic University, home of the ACHA’s and the
Review’s executive office.18 He dreamed about an American Catholic historical institute there providing graduate studies, a post-doctoral studies
program for Catholic and non-Catholic scholars, and a large Catholic
archives. ACHA members would be involved in the institute. He aimed to
secure a $500,000 endowment to fund the institute. In the end, despite his
best efforts, he did not locate the millionaire(s) of his dreams willing to
provide such funding.
For Guilday, a major aspect of the ACHA’s identity and for which
he regularly expressed satisfaction was the annual meeting held with that
of the AHA in the last week of December. At the AHA meeting, the
ACHA initially was one of the few affiliated societies. On these occasions of conversations among scholars of many faiths or none, he consistently said that Catholic historians received a cordial welcome. No doubt
some non-Catholic historians, as noted below, harbored hostile feelings
about the possibility of genuine scholarship in an authoritarian Church.
In 1928, Guilday reflected that one of the ACHA’s founding goals of
affiliating with the AHA was thereby “to create harmony in the historical
field by personal contact with our non-Catholic scholars.” Keeping in
mind one of the categories that Guilday noted in 1928 as the Association’s purpose: “mutual help and encouragement Catholics and nonCatholic scholars would receive from these annual gatherings where all
18. “Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting, American Catholic Historical Association, Indianapolis, December 27–30, 1928,” CHR, 14 (1928), 5.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

43

can meet under the aegis of history.”19 In 1934, the ACHA co-sponsored
a joint session with the American Society of Church History at the AHA
annual meeting that inaugurated the practice of the ACHA co-sponsoring sessions with one of the affiliated societies or with the AHA at the
annual meeting. Accordingly, the conversation among historians at all
levels advanced. As his massive personal correspondence of 110 boxes
reveals, he maintained cordial relationships with many historians inside
and outside the Association.
One successful ACHA project resulted in a volume of documents
related to United States’ diplomatic relations with the Holy See in the
nineteenth century. Guilday’s history department colleague, Leo F. Stock,
edited the volume. With funds from a modest ACHA revolving fund, the
first volume was published in 1933. Funds would not be found to publish
the second volume until 1945.20
By the 1930s and under the impact of the depression, Guilday saw
plans, expectations, and dreams for promoting interest in Catholic history
left unfulfilled. Despite the challenges of the time, ACHA membership
levels weathered the depression. Membership reached a high of 715 in
1930, fell to 657 by 1934, and rebounded to 745 in 1941. In 1941 he
retired as ACHA secretary and Review editor at age fifty-seven. Without
official support from the Church, though he recruited bishops and priests
as members, he had established and nurtured the Association and its journal, but he left much undone. Through his own initiative he stirred an
interest in forming an association of Catholic historians and promoted
conversation among them. In the service of his own area of historical
scholarship, he noted, “No other priest in the United States has had the
opportunity of spending all his priestly life in the work of American
Catholic history.”21 He died in 1947.
As for Catholics active in the historical profession, Guilday and his
successor, John Tracy Ellis, scarcely offered observations except to state
that ACHA members were welcomed at AHA annual meetings. Guilday’s

19. “Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting, American Catholic Historical Association, Indianapolis, December 27–30, 1928,” CHR, 14 (1928), 5.
20. Leo F. Stock, ed., United States Ministers to the Papal States: Instructions and Dispatches, 1848–1868 (Washington, DC, 1933) and Consular Relations between the United States
and the Papal States: Instructions and Despatches (Washington, DC, 1945).
21. Peter Guilday to Mrs. James [Margaret] Couzens, Washington, DC, May 4, 1933,
Peter Guilday Papers, box 32, file 1, ACUA. Margaret Couzens, wife of U.S. Senator James
Couzens (R-Michigan), was one of his benefactors.

44

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

numerous doctoral students did not publish anything beyond their dissertations—much to his disappointment.22 Hence they had slight impact on
the profession whose approval he desired.
In a brief glance at Catholic historians in the interwar years, Peter
Novick in his massive history of the American historical profession, That
Noble Dream, found them “rare within the mainstream of the profession.”23
To Novick, the “handful of American-born Roman Catholics who had any
prominence in the interwar historical profession were all converts.”24 He
named: Carlton J. H. Hayes and Parker T. Moon (Columbia University),
Robert H. Lord (Harvard), and Gaillard Hunt (U.S. Department of
State). All served as ACHA presidents during the 1920s. He also named
Raymond J. Sontag (University of California-Berkeley), president in 1952.
As Novick states, “The very substantial number of historian-priests (and
nuns) who earned their Ph.D.’s at Catholic universities spent their academic careers in religious institutions, with usually only the most tenuous
relationship with the rest of the profession.”25 He mentions what Guilday
did not acknowledge: the considerable antipathy to Catholics among many
historians, many of them Protestants, who often believed, as one put it,
that “a Catholic cannot teach history and be a true Catholic.” Catholics
were, as Novick notes, “hypersensitive to possible signs of prejudice.”26
Reading such reminded this writer of the experience of his aunt, a member
of the Sisters of Providence in Indiana. In 1946, already an experienced
high school history teacher, she enrolled in Indiana University summer
session to begin studies for the MA in history. Her professors’ hostility
toward Catholicism in the courses she took and to her personally prompted
her to withdraw. She eventually earned the MA at DePaul University. Stories similar to hers circulated in Catholic life. Under such circumstances,
the ACHA was a shelter or a welcoming home for Catholic historians in
a hostile academic world.
Such was the status of Catholics in the profession when Guilday
handed on his responsibilities to his successor at Catholic University, John
22. Peter Guilday to William Bruce, Washington, DC, undated but probably 1940,
box 34, file 4 Guilday Papers.
23. Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (New York, 1988), 69. Novick did not mention convert Herbert C.F. Bell
(Wesleyan University) ACHA president in 1938.
24. Ibid., 174.
25. Ibid., 174.
26. Ibid., 174. Novick also discusses the considerable anti-Semitism in the profession
during the same period.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

45

Tracy Ellis. Born at Seneca, Illinois in 1905, and raised there, Ellis earned
a bachelor’s degree at St. Viator College in Bourbonnais, IL, in 1927. He
then enrolled at Catholic University and obtained the PhD in medieval
history under Guilday’s direction in 1930. After teaching at several
Catholic colleges, he discerned a call to diocesan priesthood. For theological studies, he enrolled in 1934 at Sulpician Seminary, now Theological
College of Catholic University. After ordination in 1938, he joined the
Catholic University’s history department faculty full time. In 1941, he took
up Guilday’s American Church history courses. In rapid succession, Ellis
joined the ACHA Executive Council in 1940 and became ACHA secretary and the Review’s editor in 1941.
What can be said about John Tracy Ellis that has not already been said?
He revealed much about himself in autobiographical essays and his Catholic
Bishops: A Memoir (1983). In 1952 he emerged as the leading American
Catholic historian with the publication of his two-volume biography of
Cardinal James Gibbons. He joined the ranks of public intellectuals in 1955
with the publication of his article, “American Catholics and the Intellectual
Life,” in which he demonstrated the failure of Catholics as individuals and
Catholic institutions to nurture a Catholic intellectual life. In due course, he
became the “go to” figure for journalists for views on Catholic issues. He
had relatively little to say about his years as ACHA secretary.27
In the ACHA secretary’s role, Ellis largely abandoned many of Guilday’s interests. He did not aim to attract local clergy and laity to attend the
annual ACHA meetings and did not pursue creating an endowed Catholic
historical institute. Funding publications had challenged the ACHA so he
hesitated to pursue them. Nonetheless, he launched in 1952 the project to
gather and publish Archbishop John Carroll’s papers. After a succession of
editors, concluding with Thomas O’Brien Hanley, S.J., the three-volume
Carroll papers were published in 1975.28

27. John Tracy Ellis, “Fragments from My Autobiography, 1905–1942,” Review of Politics 36 (1974), 555–591; and “The Catholic University of America, 1927–1976: A Personal
Memoir,” Social Thought (1979), 35–61. For the Catholic intellectualism controversy, see John
Tracy Ellis, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life, Thought (Autumn 1955), 351–388;
John Whitney Evans, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life: Thirty Years Later,” in
Studies in Catholic History, eds., Nelson Minnich, Robert B. Eno, and Robert F. Trisco,
(Wilmington, DE, 1985) 366–91, and Philip Gleason, “A Look Back at the Catholic Intellectualism Issue,” U.S. Catholic Historian 13 (1995), 1–37.
28. Thomas O’Brien Hanley, The John Carroll Papers (Notre Dame, 1975). Cardinal
Lawrence Sheehan, Archbishop of Baltimore, provided the publication subsidy. For Carroll
documents Hanley missed, see Thomas W. Spalding, C.F.X., with Paul K. Thomas, John

46

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

Internal ACHA changes during the Ellis years include the election
of officers by mailed ballot before the annual meeting with two candidates selected for each office and election of six Executive Council members in staggered three-year terms. Women began to appear regularly on
the Executive Council. In 1944, the John Gilmary Shea Prize for best
book in Church history was established and was awarded in 1946 for the
first time to AHA president Carlton J.H. Hayes for his book Wartime
Mission in Spain.
During the Ellis era, membership in the “small but honorable” association increased from 745 in 1941 to reach the 1,000-member milestone in
1953. That year, 1011 members were recorded, 419 were priests of which
106 were bishops. Membership grew to its highest number of 1333 in
1961—the year Ellis retired as secretary. The surge reflected the postwar
era’s enormous expansion of Catholic institutions of higher education and
their history departments. Growth also benefitted from annual mailed
appeals to members to invite colleagues to join.
Ellis dealt with the challenges of editing the Review. At times he
lamented the lack of interest among Catholics in pursuing scholarship in
Church history. He often wondered why the Review did not receive a
larger number of article manuscripts of quality, though the longstanding
dependence on publishing as articles papers presented at the annual meeting gradually diminished. Apparently it became at times hard to fill the 162
pages of each quarterly issue.
In light of Ellis’s role as a public figure with a hectic writing and
speaking schedule, the work load took a toll on his health. The search
for an assistant and eventual successor resulted in locating a qualified
fellow Illinoisan. At the ACHA’s fortieth anniversary meeting in 1959,
Ellis announced the appointment of Rev. Robert Trisco, age thirty, a
priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, as assistant secretary. At Catholic
University that fall, Trisco had been appointed instructor in Church history and the Review’s associate editor. Born in Chicago in 1929, he was
raised in its rich Catholic culture, attended the archdiocesan seminaries,
and studied at the North American College and Pontifical Gregorian
University in Rome. Ordained a priest in 1954, he then began graduate
studies in Church history at the Gregorian, completing the doctorate in

Carroll Recovered: Abstracts of Letters and Other Documents Not Found in the John Carroll Papers
(Baltimore, 2000).

JOSEPH M. WHITE

47

1959, with his dissertation on the antebellum Church in the Midwest
and the Holy See.29
In due course, Ellis retired from the positions of ACHA secretary in
1961 and Review editor in 1963. Trisco was appointed to those positions.
As ACHA secretary and in 1983 appointed treasurer he held the latter
positions until 2006 and editor until 2005. With meticulous care he maintained the ACHA’s services and the high quality of the Review. With both
flourishing, members’ scholarly conversations continued in the annual
meetings with the AHA, deliberations of the Executive Council, and
standing committees—all promoting Catholic history.
At the time of the ACHA’s fiftieth anniversary in 1969, some questions arose concerning the need for a Catholic association of historians.
During the 1960s, for example, the Catholic associations of psychologists
and sociologists dropped “Catholic” from their names. A major leader of
the American Society of Church History proposed a merger with the
ACHA. However, nothing came of the idea to end the Association,
rename, or merge it. In discussing the ACHA’s identity, Robert F. Byrnes
of Indiana University, a former ACHA president, reminded members of
the types of ACHA members based on his observations through the years:
(1) historians who are Catholic but have little interest in the history of the
Church; (2) historians of the universal Church; (3) those interested in the
history of American Catholicism; and (4) those interested in the spiritual
values that Catholicism represents.30 This mixture of persons with different
interests suggests a lack of clear identity for the Association.
Another challenge impacting the attraction of joining the ACHA was
the increasing competition of other historical associations. The number of
learned societies devoted to specific historical areas and periods had grown
steadily since 1919, then rose steeply by the 1970s. In 1970–1979, thirtyfour AHA-affiliated societies formed; thirty more from 1980 to 2014,
leading to the AHA’s current 126 affiliates. Hence, historians had a wider
range of associations to choose from while their personal financial
resources dictated they could join only one or a few.
From the 1960s until the early twenty-first century, secretary and (post
1983) treasurer Trisco maintained and expanded the annual effort to sustain
29. Robert F. Trisco, The Holy See and the Nascent Church in the Middle Western United
States, 1826–1850 (Rome, 1960).
30. “Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the American Catholic Historical Association,” CHR,
58 (1972), 72.

48

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

the level of membership by urging ACHA members to promote joining the
Association among their colleagues. The annual letter under the incumbent
president’s signature helped to maintain annual membership at the 1,000plus level until the end of the twentieth century when it gradually diminished
to the current 483—the lowest number of members since the mid-1920s.
Like peer associations, the ACHA sponsored prizes. The John
Gilmary Shea prize continued to be awarded annually. In 1972 Howard R.
Marraro, professor of Italian at Columbia University, left a bequest to the
ACHA to fund an annual prize for a book in Italian history. The first
Howard and Helen Marraro Prize was awarded in 1974. In 1971, the Peter
Guilday Prize was established to recognize an author whose first article was
published in the Review. In 1992, following John Tracy Ellis’s death, funds
were raised to establish a prize in his memory to aid a graduate student at
work on a dissertation. The prize was first awarded in 1998. Msgr. Harry
Koenig, the ACHA’s treasurer 1969–83, died in 2001 and left a bequest to
fund the Koenig Prize for biography established in 2002. In 2010, the
Executive Council began the Graduate Fellowships to fund expenses for
selected graduate students to attend the annual meeting.
As before, in the ACHA’s second half century, members’ conversations and sharing of scholarship continued at the annual meetings’ sessions
along with the AHA.31 To expand the scholarly conversations, the Executive Council introduced the annual spring meeting in 1972—the first one
held at the University of Notre Dame. Historians at Catholic colleges and
universities host the spring meeting, providing members with opportunities to visit other institutions in their region and in warm weather.
In the 1960s through the 1980s, committees were formed dealing with
specific issues: History of American Catholicism, Church history in high
schools, and another related to the teaching of Church history in seminaries. From these conversations, members could take ideas and adopt them
in their institutions or in their teaching.
Types of leaders underwent change. In 1965, the Executive Council
ended the practice of restricting the ACHA presidency to lay scholars.
Msgr. Phillip Hughes of Notre Dame was then elected president for
1966; Ellis served as president in 1969 followed by twelve priests in that

31. Joseph M. White, “‘This Small and Honorable Association’: The American
Catholic Historical Association and The Catholic Historical Review, 1969–2015,” CHR 101
(2015), 835–878, provides the detailed history for the following.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

49

office. The first Protestant president was Albert Outler of Southern
Methodist University (1972) and Uta-Renate Blumenthal of Catholic
University (1997) the second. The first woman president, Annabelle
Melville of Bridgewater State University, served in 1989. Eight more
women have served. The first Jewish president was Josef Altholz of the
University of Minnesota (1987) followed by the second, Daniel Bornstein
of Washington University (2014).
After the ACHA entered the new millennium, the constitution and
bylaws were updated to strengthen the president’s role and the title of secretary and treasurer became Executive Secretary-Treasurer. Following
Trisco’s retirement in 2006, several highly qualified historians served:
Timothy Meagher (2006–2007), Paul Robichaud, C.S.P., (2009–2011),
and J. Bentley Anderson, SJ, (2011–2018) to carry out the responsibilities
of that office. Msgr. Trisco graciously filled the position in 2008–2009
during a vacancy. Charles T. Strauss has taken up these duties in 2018.
Since 2005, Nelson Minnich, history professor at Catholic University,
associated with the Catholic Historical Review since 1978 as advisory editor
then associate editor, succeeded Trisco as editor in 2005. As editor, Minnich continues the rigorous path of maintaining its high quality always
aiming to uphold it as “authoritative,” as he told this writer. Likewise
Trisco, serving as book review editor, insists that each issue of the Review
be “flawless.”
Calling to mind one of the ACHA’s purposes stated at the founding
meeting: [the] “definite object of promoting interest in Catholic history
both in this and other lands, of this and other ages. . . .” One might ask
whether this has happened in any systematic way. It appears that nothing
effective has been attempted to end the vast ignorance of the Church’s history at the grassroots level. Conspicuously, historical scholarship on the
Church has had little impact on the thinking of prelates and priests. Ellis
was known to have remarked that bishops expect published Church history
to yield “moonlight and roses,” that is, pious and apologetic material favorable to the Church and its officials. Pope Leo XIII’s exhortation to historians, cited earlier, about the truthfulness and impartiality of their historical writings has scarcely bothered the minds of prelates and priests when
invoking Church history in their public discourse.
Some prelates should know better. For example, this writer resides in
the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, and is a parishioner therein. Its
archbishop from 2005 to 2018, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, regularly issued
pastoral letters. Most letters have a historical segment near their begin-

50

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION

ning. Though names and dates may be correct, these mini-histories are
normally false and misleading with half-truths, events and ideas taken out
of context, and marked by “spin.” His aim on any issue is to put the
Church—its officials, practices, or institutions—in a favorable light. No
sign of personal or institutional weakness can ever be admitted. He committed these historical “sins” despite being an ACHA life member since
1975, having received every issue of The Catholic Historical Review to
acquaint him with the best scholarship about the Catholic past. Yet he
prefers pious and mythic history to the genuine kind that scholars have
toiled to produce. He is cited here not to “single him out” but as representative of the whole. His pattern of historical ignorance is fairly typical of
the average prelate or priest when they address the Catholic past in the
pulpit or from the podium.
Some considerations emerge from the foregoing historical account:
The major aspect of the ACHA’s founding purpose was “to promote
interest in Catholic history.” By that Guilday meant promoting such interest to all Catholics. And “interest” would surely lead to greater knowledge
that historians provide through their scholarship. The ACHA’s current
Statement of Purpose appearing on the AHA link includes the aim for
knowledge: “To promote knowledge of the history of the Catholic Church
broadly considered from the apostolic age to the present in all parts of the
world and to advance historical scholarship in all fields among members of
the association.”32 Through the decades since Guilday’s era, the history of
the ACHA reveals that outreach “to promote” beyond the circle of trained
historians has not been effectively pursued.
The ACHA’s current website states as “one” of its purposes “to promote a deeper and more widespread knowledge of the history of the
Catholic Church.” But it does not mention how the Association does so.
The website states as “the other important aim . . . the advancement of historical scholarship in all fields among its members by rendering them various services, offering them opportunities for utilizing their talents, and
according them public recognition for their demonstrated merits.”33
In conclusion, this centennial year of the Association provides an
occasion to appreciate the positive developments in its history as befits a
32. www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/affiliated-societies-americancatholic-historical-association.
33. achahistory.org/about/.

JOSEPH M. WHITE

51

major anniversary. A thoughtful consideration of its history needs to determine whether Catholic history has been effectively promoted beyond the
circle of its members. Some questions should be raised: What is the understanding of the Catholic past in the Church’s discourse? Can interest and
knowledge of Catholic history be elevated in Catholic life? How can its
members think about ways to take it in new directions in the years ahead?
These are fitting questions for our “small but honorable” Association to
address as its memers reflect on its centennial.

In the Margins of the Predestination Controversy:
The Manuscript Context of the
Hincmar Mock Epitaph
ADRIAN PAPAHAGI*
The predestination controversy, which involved some of the most
important figures of Europe between 848–860, also made literary victims. A distich, found in the margins of five manuscripts copied from
the ninth to the eleventh century, reads “Here lies Hincmar, a fiercely
avaricious thief; the only noble thing he did was to die.” By looking
afresh at the manuscripts, their context, and their relationships, the
present study investigates the vexed question of the authorship of the
Hincmar mock epitaph. It also offers the first edition of the text to take
into account all manuscript variants.
Keywords: Eriugena; Hincmar of Reims; predestination; manuscripts; mock epitaph.

T

he predestination controversy was one of the central theological disputes of the ninth century. It all started with the writings of
Godescalc, a monk from Orbais, who preached double predestination: sive
electorum ad requiem, sive reproborum ad mortem.1 The “Godescalc affair,” as
Bernard Lavaud called it,2 involved, between 848 and 860, the most
*Dr. Papahagi is professor at the Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania. The present
study was financed through grants from the Romanian Research Council (UEFISCDI TE
290-2010 and 2014-4-1794). The author would like to thank the three anonymous evaluators
of the Catholic Historical Review for their valuable comments, suggestions and corrections.
Most of them were gratefully integrated in the present study. Many thanks to Mag. Monika
Löcken and Mrs Göbel, who granted me access to the manuscript fragment in Attendorn,
and to the British Library, the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich for access to their collections, and the permission to reproduce pictures
from their manuscripts.
1. Patrologiae cursus completus, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Series Latina, 2. Series, vols. 80–
217 (Paris, 1841–64), hereafter cited as PL, PL 121:368. The standard edition is Œuvres
théologiques et grammaticales de Godescalc d’Orbais [Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense, Études et documents 20], ed. Cyrille Lambot (Louvain, 1945). For an English translation, see Gottschalk
and a Medieval Predestination Controversy, ed. and trans. Victor Genke and Francis X.
Gumerlock (Milwaukee, WI, 2010).
2. Bernard Lavaud, “La controverse sur la prédestination au IXe siècle,” in Dictionnaire
de théologie catholique, vol. 12.2, ed. É. Amann et al. (Paris, 1934-35), s. v. “Prédestination,”

52

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

53

important scholars of the age, including Hrabanus Maurus, John Scottus
Eriugena, Lupus of Ferrières, Florus of Lyon, but also the princes of the
Church and of the world—chief among them the influential archbishop of
Reims, Hincmar (806–882, r. 845–882), and King Charles the Bald (r.
840–877) himself. Between the first condemnation of Godescalc at the
council of Mainz in 848, and the final (political and theological) resolution
of the conflict at the council of Thuzey in 860, treatises, letters, councils
and synods attempted repeatedly to uproot the belief in a predestination to
damnation.
For the purpose of the present study, the landscape can be reduced to
a few of its protagonists. In 851, Hincmar of Reims, Godescalc’s bitter
enemy, asked the most brilliant intellectual of the age, John Scottus Eriugena to write a treatise in order to confute Godescalc’s propositions. This
proved a bad idea, for although Eriugena’s De praedestinatione refuted
Godescalc’s praedestinatio ad poenam, it was replete with Pelagian and pantheistic positions.3 Hincmar’s enemies quickly struck back: Bishop Prudentius of Troyes and the deacon Florus from Lyon wrote harsh condemnations of Eriugena’s pelagianae venena perfidiae (PL, cxv, col. 1109).
Hincmar was obliged to disavow Eriugena, and labelled his treatise on two
occasions as “Irish porridge” (pultes scottica)4; however, he never persecuted
Charles’s protégé, so far as records tell us.
In the margins of these heated theological jousts, and indeed in the
margins of manuscripts related to them and to their protagonists, scholars
have found a short yet highly intriguing poem attacking Hincmar, and
cols. 2901–35; G. Schrimpf, “Der Beitrag des Johannes Scottus Eriugena zum Prädestinationsstreit,” in Die Iren und Europa im früheren Mittelalter, ed. H. Löwe (Stuttgart, 1972), 2:
819–865; David Ganz, “The Debate on Predestination,” in M. Gibson and J. Nelson, eds.,
Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, 2nd ed. (Aldershot, 1990), 283–302.
3. John Scottus Eriugena, Treatise on Divine Predestination, ed. and trans. Mary Brennan (Notre Dame, IN, 1998). See also Gangolf Schrimpf, Das Werk des Johannes Scottus Eriugena im Rahmen des Wissenschaftsverständnisses seiner Zeit (Münster, 1982), 72–127; Dermot
Moran, The Philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena. A Study of Idealism in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989), 27–35. For further bibliographical references, see Mary Brennan, Guide des
études érigéniennes. Biographie commentée des publications 1930–1987, [Vestigia 5] (Fribourg
and Paris, 1989).
4. Hincmar of Reims, De praedestinatione 21, PL 125:56, 195; see Maïeul Cappuyns,
Jean Scot Érigène. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa pensée (Louvain and Paris, 1933), 126–27. On Hincmar’s positions in the predestination controversy, see Heinrich Schrörs, Hinkmar Erzbischof
von Reims. Sein Leben und seine Schriften (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1884), 88–174; Jean Devisse,
Hincmar, archevêque de Reims 845–882, 3 vols. (Geneva, 1975), 1:115–279. Hincmar is repurposing here Jerome’s description of Pelagius as “stolidissimus et Scottorum pultibus praegravatus”: Hieronymus, In Hieremian libri vi [CCSL 74], ed. S. Reiter (Turnhout, 1960), 4.

54

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

ascribed variously to Godescalc or to John Scottus Eriugena. In its most
common edited form, this mock epitaph reads:
Hic iacet Hincmarus, cleptes uehementer auarus;
Hoc solum fecit nobile quod periit.
[Here lies Hincmar, a fiercely avaricious thief; the only noble thing he
did was to die.]

This poem of modest dimensions and immodest scope is one of the
most idiosyncratic texts in the corpus of poetry from the Carolingian age.
Günter Bernt considers it “probably the only mocking epigram of its time,
or in any case the most biting one.”5 It is indeed a cruel text, especially so
if it was “intended to be read by the recipient prior to his interment,” as
Michael Herren suggests.6 But which of the two Hincmars from the ninth
century was the unfortunate recipient, and who authored these biting lines?
Manuscripts often tell us considerably more than the texts they transmit. Even if no answer can ever be provided to the general satisfaction, a
fresh look at the manuscripts will disclose a subtle net of connections,
which has not yet been properly perceived and fully understood.
The poem was first identified in 1876 by Wilhelm Meyer in Munich,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 14569 (M).7 In 1879, Ernst Dümmler
discovered a second witness, containing a different version, in Vatican, MS
Reg. lat. 240 (V)8; however, the entire context of the epigram in this
manuscript was not described until Wilmart’s 1937 catalogue of the Latin
Reginenses.9 The two versions, collated for the first time by Heinrich Schrörs
5. Günter Bernt, Das lateinische Epigramm im Übergang von der Spätantike zum frühen
Mittelalter (Munich, 1968), 283: “Das Distichon ist in dieser Zeit nahezu das einzige Spottepigramm, jedenfalls das schärfste.” Most critics concur in this view: Ludwig Traube, Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Poetae latini aevi Carolini III (Berlin, 1896), 553: “epitaphium
cum acerba ironia scriptum”; Édouard Jeauneau, “Jean Scot et l’ironie” in Jean Scot écrivain.
Actes du IV e Colloque international d’études érigéniennes, Montréal 28 août–2 septembre 1983, ed.
G. H. Allard (Montreal, 1986), 18, reprinted in Jeauneau, Études érigéniennes (Paris, 1987),
328: “Le trait est féroce”; Peter Godman, Poetry of the Carolingian Renaissance (London,
1985), 306. Claudio Leonardi contrasts the epitaph to the “ironia lieve e sorridente partecipazione” of contemporary distichs written in the Irish circles of Laon: “Nuove voci poetiche
tra secolo IX e XI,” Studi medievali 2 (1961), 148.
6. Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae Carmina, ed. Michael W. Herren (Dublin, 1993), 38.
7. Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis secundum Andreae Schmelleri indices, ed. K. Halm, F. Keinz, W. Meyer, G. Thomas, vol. 2.2 (Munich, 1876).
8. Ernst Dümmler, “Die Handschriftliche Überlieferung der lateinischen Dichtungen
der Zeit der Karolinger,” Neues Archiv 4 (1879), 531.
9. André Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini, Tomus I. Codices 1–250 (Vatican, 1937).

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

55

in 1884,10 were published by Ludwig Traube in Poetae latini aevi Carolini in
1896.11 In 1930, a third variant of the mock epitaph was discovered by Paul
Lehmann in London, British Library MS Harley 2688 (H).12 All subsequent
analyses and editions of the text rely on these three manuscripts only. In
1993, Michael Herren used a fourth witness, which had been discovered by
Bernhard Bischoff: a manuscript fragment bearing no shelfmark, which
allegedly belonged to the Kreisheimatsmuseum (now Südsauerlandmuseum)
in Attendorn (A)—the manuscript is actual privately owned by the Göbel
family, in Attendorn, and the present author was the first to actually inspect
it.13 Moreoever, most scholars have so far ignored the fifth manuscript of the
Hincmar epitaph (London, British Library MS Harley 3095-H1), which
was signalled cursorily by Fabio Troncarelli as early as 198714; I transcribed
the version in this manuscript for the first time in 2006.15
There thus exist five witnesses of the text, some including extra lines
or ascribing it to an author. They read:
A-Attendorn, private collection (Göbel family), s. n., s. IX3, NE
France?, recto of Victorius fol.16
GOTISCALT
Hic iacet igma**us17 cleptis uehementer auarus
Hoc tantum gescit nobile quod periit
Gloss: clepit .i. furo inde d(icitu)r cleptis et clepus
10. Schrörs, Hinkmar, 317.
11. Traube, see n. 5 supra.
12. Paul Lehmann, “Mitteilungen aus Handschriften II,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 2 (1930), 19.
13. Herren, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae Carmina, 23. See also Bernhard Bischoff, Katalog
der festländischen Handschriften des 9. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1998), nr. 118. The
fragmentum codicis is not recorded in Ulrich Hinz, Handschriftencensus Westfalen (Wiesbaden,
1999); a single Attendorn manuscript is catalogued on pages 1–2. I would like to thank Mag.
Monika Löcken, Director of the Südsauerlandmuseum, for kindly receiving me in February
2016, and Mrs Göbel, the owner of the fragment, for allowing me to look at the manuscript
fragment in her possession.
14. Fabio Troncarelli, Boethiana aetas. Modelli grafici e fortuna manoscritta della «Consolatio Philosophiae» tra IX e XII secolo (Alessandria, 1987), nr. 80, p. 221; rev. ed., Cogitatio
mentis. L’eredità di Boezio nell’Alto Medioevo (Naples, 2005).
15. Adrian Papahagi, “Destin et providence (Consolatio Philosophiae IV, pr. 6). La
réception du néoplatonisme boécien à l’époque carolingienne,” in Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus des séances de l’année 2006, Janvier–Mars (Paris, 2006), 695; rev.
English version in Adrian Papahagi, Boethiana Medievalia. A Collection of Studies on the Early
Medieval Fortune of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (Bucharest, 2010), 59.
16. The date and origin of each manuscript will be discussed further ahead.
17. There is a tear in the manuscript, which may correspond to two letters (Igma<rr>us,
Igma<ur>us?), or may conceal a space before the r (Igma<r>us).

56

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY
V-Vatican, BAV MS Reg. lat. 240, s. IXex, Laon/Fulda?, fol. 121v.
Hoc epitaphium composuit Iohannes Scotus licet sapiens hereticus tamen.
Hic iacet. igcmarus cleptes. et semper auarus.
Hoc solum fecit nobile quod periit.
H-London, BL MS Harley 2688, s. IX/X, NE France/Alemannic area?,
fol. 18v

Hīc iăcĕt īncmārūs clēptēs uĕhĕmēntĕr auārūs18
Sōrdĭdŭs īnstăbĭlīs mādēscīt rōrĕ pērīclī
Hoc solum fecit nobile quod periit.

H1-London, BL MS Harley 3095, s. IX/X, NE France/Alemannic
area?, fol. 146v
Hic iacet incmarus cleptes uehementer auarus
Sordidus instabili madescit rore pericli19
M-Munich, BSB CLM 14569, s. XI, Tegernsee?, fol. 72v
Hic iacet hincmarus clepthes uehementer auarus
Hoc solum gessit nobile quod periit.20

The first aspect that needs to be clarified is the exact form of the text.
The only stable line, appearing in all five manuscripts, is “Hic iacet...
auarus.” In this line, there occur the following variant readings: igma<r?>us
A, igcmarus V, incmarus HH1, hincmarus M; cleptes VHH1, clepthes M,
cleptis A; uehementer AHH1M, et semper V. The spelling igcmarus in V is a
bad transliteration from Greek, showing that early in the tradition, a scribe
did not know that ‛Ιγ κ - reads Hinc- rather than Igc- (dropping the initial
h may also be a Romance feature). I believe this lectio difficilior, transmitted
only by V, to be the original version; it was correctly latinized by H and H1
(which agree in most readings), while A reduced it abusively to igmarus (or
igmarrus, or less likely igmaurus), and M corrected it to hincmarus. Cleptes,
a Greek loan word, is misspelled only by M, which supposedly wanted to
correct it, as it did in the case of hincmarus; the result is hypercorrection. A
may have considered cleptes a plural of the third declension, and turned it
into cleptis, to agree in number with the subject. Et semper in V is a variant,
or an unlikely scribal mistake for uehementer, which is preferred by the
other manuscripts.
18. The epitaph is preceded by another line in leonine rhyme, written by a different,
insular hand: Vt cito sis uerax. tibi mandat nuncius audax (with a long descender of r in uerax).
19. Metrical marks as in H, but faint beyond recognition.
20. The distich is copied among other short poetic texts. It is preceded by the line Mausolea sunt sepulchra seu monumenta regum a mausoleo rege dicta, and followed by a distich in leonine rhymes referring to Reims and Bordeaux (Remis misit equum mulum burdegula nullum/
Aut mulus ueniat aut equus huc redeat), both copied by the same hand.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

57

When it comes to the second line, there appear two versions. AVM read
“Hoc... periit,” whereas H and H1 alone contain the extra line “Sordidus...
pericli.” “Hoc... periit,” in the variant present in V, was added as the third
line in H by a later hand, as is demonstrated by palaeographical differences
in the execution of such letters as e, p, m, and the lack of scansion marks in
the added line. Two variant readings occur in the line “Hoc... periit”: A reads
tantum where MVH agree on solum; VH read fecit, where M reads gessit and
A gescit, which may be further evidence that the mansucript was copied in a
Romance rather than Germanic environment.21 Periit and solum are preferable to gessit and tantum, because the line is quoted from Ausonius’s epigrammatic description of emperor Otho (Caesares 21, 2, l. 36).22 As for “Sordidus... pericli,” instabili is under rhyme, and should be preferred to instabilis,
which would otherwise make perfect sense if agreeing with incmarus.
It can thus be concluded that we are in the presence of two traditions:
a, represented by manuscripts VAM, and b, with the two Harleian
manuscripts HH1. A later editor of H had access to the variant present in
V, and added the second line from this version. In a, V is the best
manuscript and possibly represents the oldest tradition of the text, characterized by the Hellenistic spelling igcmarus and the correct quotation from
Ausonius in the second line. A, which according to Bischoff is older than
V, does however abound in mistaken readings (igmarus, gescit, tantum). The
recentior M is characterized by the tendency towards hypercorrection (hincmarus, clepthes). In b, H is the best manuscript, from which H1 was copied.
However, a later editor added the second line from a at the end of the distich in H. The tradition a was thus available to one editor of b, but not the
other way round. The tradition a, present in more manuscripts, should be
preferred to b on account of the quote from Ausonius, which agrees with
the learned nature of the distich and is literarily better.
The additional notes present in the manuscripts must not be included
in the text, which should remain a distich. As already noted by Bernt, the
line “Ut cito sis uerax, tibi mandat nuncius audax” in H does not belong
with the Hincmar epitaph.23 This is further supported by the manuscript
21. Sc for ss is a Romance phonetic error according to Prof. Michael Allen, who has
kindly let me know his conclusions after seeing the manuscript fragment in September 2016.
22. Bernt, Das lateinische Epigramm, 282 and n. 40.
23. Bernt, Das lateinische Epigramm, 285. The same view is held by Paul E. Dutton,
“Eriugena, the Royal Poet,” in Jean Scot écrivain. Actes du IV e Colloque international, Montréal,
28 août–2 septembre 1983 (Montreal and Paris, 1986), 57 n. 25, and by Herren, Iohannis Scotti
Eriugenae Carmina, 38.

58

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

evidence: the addition is separated from the mock epitaph by a blank line,
the size of the letters is bigger, and, most importantly, it was copied by a
different hand. What has gone unnoticed so far is the long insular descender of the r in “uerax.”
“Remis misit equum mulum burdegula nullum/ Aut mulus ueniat aut
equus huc redeat,” the distich added in M represents an autonomous epigram, written by Hincmar of Reims against Frotarius of Bordeaux, and
recorded by Flodoardus in the Historia Remensis ecclesiae (3.21).24 This, of
course, suggests that the scribe in M identified hincmarus with the archbishop of Reims, and associated him with the other epigram as well.
A attributes the mock epitaph to Gotiscalt, to wit Godescalc of Orbais
(ca. 808–ca. 868), whom Hincmar of Reims persecuted and imprisoned
during the predestination controversy.25 V identifies the author with John
Scottus Eriugena (ca. 815–ca. 875) in a totally unsympathetic manner—
licet sapiens, hereticus tamen—which is also reminiscent of the vocabulary
used during the bitter dogmatic disputes on predestination.
We thus have two putative authors—Godescalc and Eriugena—and,
at least on onomastic grounds, two possible recipients—Hincmar of Reims
and his nephew, namesake, suffragan, and eventually enemy, the bishop of
Laon († 879).26
Before attempting to find an answer to the puzzle concerning the
origin, authorship, and intended recipient of the mock epitaph, one must
consider with more care the manuscript context. The codices do indeed
provide a wealth of information complementary to the texts, which needs
to be properly assessed.
M is the most recent and least interesting witness to the textual tradition a. It was most likely produced at St. Emmeram in the eleventh century.27 Despite its late date, Dáibhí Ó Croinín believes that it is an important witness to the scribal and scholarly activities of an Irish man of
24. Traube, Poetae III, 415, n. on 5; PL 135:204; MGH SS 13:517—new edition
Flodoard von Reims, Die Geschichte der Reimser Kirche, ed. Martina Stratmann (Hannover,
1998). See discussion in Bernt, Das lateinische Epigramm, 285–86.
25. See Klaus Vielhaber, Gottschalk der Sachse (Bonn, 1956).
26. On Hincmar of Reims, see Devisse, Hincmar, archevêque de Reims. On the conflict
between the two Hincmars, see Peter R. McKeon, Hincmar of Laon and Carolingian Politics
(Urbana, IL, 1978) and John J. Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930. Its
Manuscripts and Masters (Munich, 1978), 20–22.
27. Date: s. XI; origin: St. Emmeram (Schmeller, Dümmler, Traube).

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

59

learning on the continent in the mid-ninth century, and argues that the
pages of Greek and Latin glossary material in M are related to the activity
of Eriugena.28 Such material, as we shall see, may derive from the famous
Greek-Latin glossary (Laon, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 444), produced in the ninth century in the environment of Eriugena. The same
Greek-Latin glossary is transmitted by H, and may have copied from
British Library, Harley MS 5792 (s. VII/VIII), produced in Italy but present in Laon in the ninth century.29
A, considered by Bischoff and Ebersperger to be a French manuscript
copied s. IX3, is perforce the most silent witness.30 It may have been produced in the area of Laon and Reims, in the age and immediate environment of the protagonists: the two Hincmars, Eriugena and Godescalc. It
was possibly copied by a French hand, with some archaic features (cc a’s,
open g’s, round d’s alternating with the standard Carolingian forms). Most
strikingly, it displays an initial S surrounded, in typical Irish or insular fashion, by red dots. It is the only known manuscript associating Boethius’s
Consolatio Philosophiae with Victorius of Aquitaine’s Calculus (whose earliest
witness is the late-eighth-century Irish fragment in Vatican, Vat. Lat. MS
5755, fols. 5r–6r).31 The Boethian text is accompanied by the so-called
Remigian commentary, copied by a contemporary hand, which need not
date the manuscript to after 901, as Pierre Courcelle believed, since Remigian material is in fact an accumulation of glosses and commentaries produced over the last four decades of the ninth century in Carolingian Francia,
as I argued elsewhere.32 One should also remember, of course, that Remi of
Auxerre was indebted to Eriugena, as Giulio D’Onofrio has argued.33
V offers a wealth of information. It is a late ninth-century manuscript,
produced either in the environment of Hincmar of Laon, or, as André
Wilmart believes, in Fulda.34 Ernst Dümmler’s proposed dating in the tenth
28. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, “An Eriugenian Miscellany in a Munich manuscript?,” Peritia
16 (2002), 242–49.
29. CLA II.2.203; Contreni, Cathedral School, 57.
30. Bischoff, Katalog, nr. 118, p. 31; Herren, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae Carmina, 23.
31. Abbo of Fleury and Ramsey, Commentary on the Calculus of Victorius of Aquitaine,
ed. A. M. Peden (Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi XV), (Oxford, 2002), xl.
32. Papahagi, Boethiana Mediaevalia, 66.
33. Giulio D’Onofrio, “Agli inizi della diffusione della Consolatio e degli Opuscula sacra
nella scuola tardo-carolingia: Giovanni Scotto e Remigio di Auxerre”, in Congresso internazionale di studi boeziani (Pavia, 5–8 ottobre 1980). Atti, ed. L. Obertello (Rome, 1981), 343–54.
34. The manuscript is dated s. IX–X by Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini 1: nr. 240,
pp. 71–72.

60

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

century and the attribution to Nicolsburg are wholly unwarranted.35
According to Wilmart’s description of V, the epitaph is copied and
attributed to Eriugena on fol. 121v by the same late-ninth-century hand
which adds on fol. 1v the gloss: “In nomine domini nostri iesu christi. incipit
libel[lu]s. aduersus cuiusdam uanissimi hominis qui cognominatur iohannes ineptias et errores. de praedestinatione. et praescientia diuina. et de uera humani arbitrii libertate. Venerunt ad nos. idest ad ecclesiam lugdunensem .i. ad me igcmarum episcopum.”36 Moreover, on top of fol. 1r, a librarian believed by
Wilmart to have been active at Fulda in the sixteenth century, added the
note “Igomari episcopi Viennen<sis>,” and then corrected it to “Lugdunensis.”37 The connection with the circle of Laon is further suggested by the text
transmitted: Florus of Lyon’s treatise against John Scottus.
Ernst Dümmler, who discovered V, and Ludwig Traube, who first
edited it, accepted the Eriugenian authorship claimed in the manuscript,
and recognized in igcmarus the great Hincmar of Reims.38 The biographer
of Eriugena, Dom Maïeul Cappuyns, refused John’s authorship of the epitaph, and ascribed it to the archbishop of Reims.39 According to Cappuyns’s far-fetched hypothesis, Hincmar of Reims would have composed
the mock epitaph for, or rather against, the bishop of Laon, a highly controversial character, accused of simony by his contemporaries, and above all
by his uncle.40 However, the weak point of such a theory is obvious, for in
this case Hincmar of Reims would have generated lasting onomastic confusion between himself and his nephew, to his own disadvantage.41 The
manuscript references to Godescalc and Eriugena in M and V suggest that
the mock epitaph was composed in the context of the predestination controversy, in which Hincmar of Reims was a central figure. This detracts

35. Dümmler, “Die handschriftliche Überlieferung,” 533.
36. Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini 1:71.
37. Wilmart, Codices Reginenses Latini 1:72.
38. Dümmler, “Die handschriftliche Überlieferung,” 531; Schrörs, Hinkmar, 317.
Schrörs identifies “incmarus” with Hincmar of Laon. Ludwig Traube and Paul Lehmann
believe him to be Hincmar of Reims. Lehmann adds Harley 2688 to the two manuscripts
known by Dümmler, Schrörs and Traube. Traube, “Paläographische Forschungen V. Autographa des Iohannes Scottus, aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von Edward Kennard
Rand,” in Abhandlungen der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 26.1 (1912), 5; Lehmann, “Mitteilungen
aus Handschriften II,” 19.
39. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Érigène, 236–237.
40. Schrörs, Hinkmar, 317.
41. See also the criticism of Franz Brunhölzl, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des
Mittelalters, 2 vols. (Munich, 1975), 1:474–75, n. 169.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

61

from the possibility that the poem should refer to the bishop of Laon,
although, on the other hand, cleptes best applies to him.
I. P. Sheldon-Williams includes the epitaph among the works doubtfully or wrongly attributed to Eriugena.42 He builds his demonstration on
the evidence, already pointed out by Dümmler and Wilmart, that the hand
which attributed the mock epitaph to Eriugena in V, also added the name
Igcmarus to the Liber aduersus Iohannem Scottum in the same manuscript. In
Sheldon-Williams’s view, an unknown ninth-century scholar wanted to
associate the two texts, and thus to suggest a conflict between Eriugena
and one of the two Hincmars. Moreover, Sheldon-Williams believes he
recognizes in the distich the malicious style of Hincmar of Reims’s comment on the death of Godescalc of Orbais, and thus agrees with Cappuyns’s rather tenuous theory that the author of the epitaph is the archbishop of Reims, and the victim is Hincmar of Laon.
The epitaph, “one of the most perplexing poems in the Eriugenian
corpus,” to quote Paul Dutton, does display, according to this scholar, Eriugena’s “not uncharacteristically sharp sense of humour.”43 Although Eriugena seldom used leonine rhymes in his poetry, some elements in the distich are not incompatible with Eriugenian authorship. The Greek
borrowing cleptes and the spelling of Hincmar’s name in V can indeed
point to Eriugena, who was notoriously fond of such displays of erudition,
although Michael Lapidge points out that as a rule Greek words are not
transliterated in Eriugena’s poems.44 However, the fact that the author
preferred the exact Greek word cleptes to the Latin adaptation clepta, used
by Plautus and other writers, is an instance of linguistic pedantry rare for
that age, but not for John Scottus.
According to Dutton, H, V and M are all connected by circumstantial
evidence to Hincmar of Reims. In M, the epitaph is preceded by the epigram “Remis misit equum”; V contains Florus’s treatise against Eriugena
and the scribal attribution to “Igcmarus episcopus.” As for H, Dutton puts
up a rather fragile theory. He believes that its owner, “HA archiepiscopus”
42. I. P. Sheldon-Williams, “A List of Work Doubtfully or Wrongly Attributed to
Johannes Scottus Eriugena,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 15 (1964), 97. This author does
not know MS Harley 3095. Similarly, Peter Godman, Poetry, nr. 52, p. 306, n.
43. Dutton, “Eriugena, the Royal Poet,” 56.
44. Michael Lapidge, “L’influence stylistique de la poésie de Jean Scot,” in Jean Scot
Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie [Colloques internationaux du CNRS 561] (Paris, 1977),
441. See also John J. O’Meara, Eriugena (Oxford, 1988), 194–195.

62

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

(fol. 19r) was Hadebald of Cologne (819–841), and that the epitaph was
added later in the ninth century by a local scribe, happy to offend Hincmar,
who was a bitter enemy of Gunthar of Cologne.45 However, the dates of
Hadebald are too early, and H has more than “some connection with the
Greek glossaries of Laon,” as Dutton is prepared to recognize—it is dependent on Laon 444 (which, on fol. 297v, eulogizes the bishop of Laon:
“Hincmarus vivat sapiens et commemorandus”46).
The two Harleian manuscripts also display a network of hitherto little
studied or unnoticed connections between themselves, with the two Hincmars, and with Eriugena. H is a composite codex, containing elements from
the ninth, tenth and twelfth centuries.47 The second element of the
manuscript (B: fols. 17–22) is a ternio, most likely produced in France in the
last decades of the ninth century.48 The Hincmar epitaph was copied, with
scansion marks on fol. 18v, which is otherwise blank. On fol. 22v there is a
remarkable drawing of Philosophia visiting Boethius, which was originally the
frontispiece of H1, containing the Consolatio Philosophiae, as demonstrated by
David Ganz49; underneath the picture, one can read three biblical distichs.50
The main bulk of the quire is occupied by the so-called Idiomata
generum, which are, as A. C. Dionisotti explains, “lists of Latin words of
which the Greek equivalent is of different gender.”51 This version of the
Idiomata appears in two other manuscripts, to which H1 is related52:
British Library, Harley MS 5792, copied in the eighth century in Italy or
45. Dutton, “Eriugena, the Royal Poet,” 58–59.
46. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Érigène, 76, n. 5 and 236, n. 5.
47. According to Margaret T. Gibson and Lesley Smith, its composition is: A (s. XII):
fols. 1r–16r, Liutprand, Antapodosis; B (s. IX4 ): fols. 17r–22v, tabula uentorum, hymns to St.
Michael, Idiomata generum and the Hincmar epitaph; C (s. IX): fols. 23r–46v, Horace, Epodes,
Carmen seculare, Epistulae, Saturae; D (s. IX), fols. 47r–54v: Priscian, Institutiones iv-v; E (s.
XII1): fols. 55r–66v, Boethius, De musica. Gibson and Smith, Codices Boethiani. A Conspectus
of Manuscripts of the Works of Boethius, I. Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland (London,
1995), nr. 120, p. 141.
48. According to Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II, nr. 2448, p. 114. Gibson and
Lesley, Codices Boethiani I, date B to the tenth century.
49. David Ganz, “A Tenth-Century Drawing of Philosophy Visting Boethius,” in
Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence, ed. Margaret Gibson (Oxford, 1980), 275–77.
50. “Lingua sapiencium ornat scienciam. Os fatuorum ebullat stulticiam; Melius est
uocare ad holera cum karitate; quam ad uitulum saginatum cum odio; Ubi fuerit superbia. ibi
enim & contumelia.”
51. Anna Carlotta Dionisotti, “Greek Grammars and Dictionaries in Carolingian
Europe,” in The Sacred Nectar of the Greeks. The Study of Greek in the West in the Early Middle
Ages, ed. Michael W. Herren in collaboration with S. A. Brown (London, 1988), 15.
52. Dionisotti, “Greek Grammars,” 16–17.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

63

in Francia,53 and the already mentioned Laon, Bibliothèque Municipale
(Médiathèque), MS 444, produced in the circle of Eriugena and Martin of
Laon.54 As John Contreni argues, Laon 444 was copied under the supervision of Martin from an Irish exemplar; Hincmar of Laon’s scribe Hartgarius and Eriugena may also have contributed to its production,55 although
no autograph note by the latter has been identified in H.56 In any case, the
scribe honors Eriugena by transcribing Greek lines and isolated words used
by the great philosopher in his poems.57
Most interestingly, the B quire of H also contains two puzzling elements of identification. On fol. 19r, one can read “HA ARCHIEPISCOPI E[ST],”58 and on fol. 22r, in the lower margin, there can be found
the Greek name “IωANHC,” which may well designate John Scottus Eriugena. The identification of archbishop “HA,” on the other hand, is considerably more problematic. Paul Lehmann opted for Hadebald of
Cologne (819–841),59 but Bernhard Bischoff was right to stress that such
an identification is hard to sustain due to the early dates of Hadebald.60
However, following Traube, most scholars ascribe H to the cathedral
library of Cologne,61 which to my mind is not supported by evidence.
53. E. A. Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores, II. Great Britain and Ireland (Osnabrück,
1985, reprint of the ed. 1935), nr. 203, p. 25. According to Lowe, the manuscript was “written
either in Italy or France,” yet “the ‘abc’ pen-trial on fol. 40 seems French rather than Italian.”
54. Félix Ravaisson, “Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de Laon,” in Catalogue général des
manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques des départements. Tome premier, ed. Félix Ravaisson and
Guglielmo Libri (Paris, 1849), nr. 444, pp. 234–36 and facsimile.
55. Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon, 56–63.
56. Traube, “Paläographische Forschungen,” 1–12 and tables; T. A. M. Bishop, “Autographa of John the Scot,” in Jean Scot Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie, Laon 7–12 juillet
1975 [Colloques internationaux du CNRS, nr. 561] (Paris, 1977), 89–94; Jean Vezin, “A
propos des manuscrits de Jean Scot. Quelques remarques sur les manuscrits autographes du
haut moyen âge,” in Jean Scot Érigène et l’histoire de la philosophie, Laon 7–12 juillet 1975 [Colloques internationaux du CNRS, nr. 561] (Paris, 1977), 95–116.
57. Jeauneau, Études érigéniennes, 501.
58. Rather than “HA ARCHIEPISCOPUS,” cf. Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II,
nr. 2448, p. 114.
59. Lehmann, “Mitteilungen aus Handschriften II,” 19.
60. Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II, nr. 2448, p. 114: “von Lehmann auf
Erzbischoff Hadebald von Köln, 819–841, bezogen, womit die jüngere Schrift sich schwer
vereinigen läßt.”
61. Sigrid Krämer, Handschriftenkataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Ergänzungsband
I, Teil 2 (Munich, 1989), 413; Glaube und Wissen im Mittelalter. Die Kölner Dombibliothek, ed.
J. Plotzek et al. (Munich, 1998), 34; Ruth Maria Höpfner, “Graeca in den mittelalterlichen
Handschriften der Kölner Dombibliothek,” in Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Kölner Dombibliothek. Drittes Symposium der Diözesan- und Dombibliothek Köln zu den Dom-Manuskripten,
ed. Heinz Finger (Cologne, 2010), 39.

64

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

Ownership inscriptions have survived in many Cologne manuscripts
copied from the times of Archbishop Hildebald (787–818) down to the
age of Archbishop Everger (985–999), and they all display approximately
the same formula.62 After scanning Carolingian and Ottonian lists of bishops, one discovers that “HA” can also refer to Hatto I, abbot of Reichenau
and archbishop of Mainz (891–913), unless it is a very uncommon abbreviation of Hincmar’s name. In addition to these facts, one must note that
the fourth element of H, containing a fragment of Priscian’s Institutiones
was most likely produced in Reims in the lifetime of Hincmar.63 Indeed,
almost all ninth-century Harleian manuscripts are of French origin,
according to the catalogue of Bischoff and Ebersperger.64
The origin and date of H1, on the other hand, are more controversial.
As already said, the drawing of Philosophia, preserved in H, but originally
belonging to H1, connects the two manuscripts in an interesting way. In
other words, the quire containing the Greek Idiomata in H was initially the
opening of H1. This is an argument in favor of an early dating of H1, and
indeed, most scholars agree upon a date in the late ninth century. Michel
Huglo even dates it, with precision, after 873.65 Only Bischoff and
Ebersperger date it in the tenth century, although Bischoff had held a different opinion (teste Fabio Troncarelli).66 However, the letter forms (and
especially the open a) suggest an earlier date, as Huglo’s analysis shows.
H is also believed to come from Cologne, and the presence of Old
High German glosses to the Consolatio Philosophiae argues for a Germanic
provenance.67 However, the Consolatio commentary in H1 points in
62. E.g. MS 54, fol. 1r: “Codex Sancti Petri sub pio patre Hildibaldo archiepiscopo
scriptus”; MS 93, fol. 117v: “Expliciunt capitula Epistolaris Beati Gregorii sub pio padre
Hadebaldo sriptus (sic)”; MS 53, fol. 1v: “Liber Sancti Petri scriptus sub tempore domini
Evergeri archiepiscopi”—cf. Plotzek, 17–30, ill. 3, 12, 16.
63. Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II, nr. 2449, p. 114: “Schule von Reims.”
64. Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II, nrs. 2438 et ss.
65. Michel Huglo, “Remarques sur un manuscrit de la “Consolatio Philosophiae”
(Londres, British Library, Harleian 3095),” Scriptorium 45 (1991), 294. Codices Boethiani I,
nr. 124, p. 144: “s. IX.”
66. Bischoff and Ebersperger, Katalog II, s.n., p. 121. Fabio Troncarelli writes: “Lo
Huygens data il codice al I trentennio del X secolo. Tale datazione contrasta con la forma
delle lettere del codice, piuttosto della fine del IX (per questa data è anche B. Bischoff, in una
lettera del 28.XI.1971).” Troncarelli, Boethiana Aetas, 221.
67. The Old High German glosses were edited by H. Thoma, “Altdeutsches aus Londoner Handschriften,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 73 (1951),
234–237. Rolf Bergmann, Verzeichnis der althochdeutschen und altsächsischen Glossenhandschriften (Berlin, 1973), nr. 418, p. 53.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

65

another direction. H1 has two main layers of glosses: the earlier ones,
copied in a dark ink, are related to the Saint Gall type, and a later layer,
copied in light brown ink, transmits the so-called Remigian commentary.
Thus, it transmits in varying degrees of completeness and accuracy, both
the French and the Alemannic late-ninth-century Boethius commentaries.
Of course, it may have traveled from Eastern Francia to Alemannia in the
course of the ninth or early-tenth century, ending up in the possession of
Hatto I of Mainz, who probably acquired it at Einsiedeln.68
The H-H1 book may have been produced in the region of Reims or
Laon sometime in the last three decades of the ninth century. Someone
from the circle of Eriugena in Laon or Reims may have added the epitaph
on a blank page at the beginning of the manuscript (now H, fol. 18v).69 At
a later time, the manuscript may have reached Einsiedeln, where it was
glossed in Old High German. It is on that occasion, I believe, when the
manuscript was still intact, that the mock epitaph was copied again in what
is now H1, fol. 146v. Later still, when the quire now in H was extracted
from the Boethius manuscript, another scribe who had access to the variant
preserved only by V in the a-text, added a third line (“Hoc solum fecit
nobile quod periit”) to the distich in H.
If we turn back to the question of authorship, the arguments in favor
of Godescalc must be mentioned. In the first place, the attribution in A
68. According to Cyril Ernest Wright, Fontes Harleiani (London, 1972), 168-69, the
manuscript was purchased together with over one hundred manuscripts by Harley’s librarian,
Humphrey Wanley, in 1724 or 1725 from an Italian tradesman called Giovanni Zamboni.
Zamboni had acquired it from the Elector Palatine’s library at Düsseldorf, and the book had
also belonged to the humanist Graevius.
69. The presence of Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae in Laon is demonstrated by Laon,
Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 439 (see Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon, 46, n. 30), yet
this little glossed manuscript does not display traces of scholarly interest. According to Devisse,
Hincmar, 1:148, n. 6, this manuscript may have been accessible to Hincmar of Reims. It is certain that Eriugena knew the “magnificus Boethius,” to whom he refers by name at least six times
in the Periphyseon, according to Goulven Madec, Jean Scot et ses auteurs. Annotations érigéniennes
(Paris, 1988), 32. The question whether he commented upon the Consolatio Philosophiae himself
is however a matter of debate. See, for example, Giulio D’Onofrio, “Giovanni Scoto e Boezio:
tracce degli Opuscula Sacra e della Consolatio nell’ opera eriugeniana,” Studi Medievali 21 (1980),
707–52, and “Giovanni Scotto e Remigio di Auxerre: a proposito di alcuni commenti altomedievali a Boezio,” Studi Medievali 22 (1981), 587–693. Older literature also proposed the thesis
of Eriugenian commentaries on the Consolatio and Opuscula. See, for example, E. K. Rand, “The
Supposed Commentary of John the Scott on the ‘Opuscula Sacra’ of Boethius,” Revue néoscolastique 36 (1934), 64–77; Hubert Silvestre, “Le commentaire inédit de Jean Scot Erigène au mètre
IX du Livre III du ‘De consolatione philosophiae’ de Boèce,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 47
(1952), 44–122, retracted in Sacris Erudiri 47 (1952), 398.

66

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

and the early date of the manuscript are significant. Godescalc had every
reason in the world to hate Hincmar of Reims, his most bitter enemy.
Michael Herren also lists stylistic arguments: the distich uses a double leonine rhyme in the first line, and a single one in the second line. This is consistent with Godescalc’s practice (every line of the 154 hexameters in
Carmen ad Rathramnum uses leonine rhyme), whereas Eriugena has
recourse to single leonine rhymes very sparingly, “and never employs
double leonine in his hexametres.”70 Moreover, the addenda in H and M
also employ leonine rhyme, which seems to point the entire tradition away
from Eriugena, so far as style is concerned.
One element in the epitaph suggests that the object of mockery is
Hincmar of Laon, rather than the archbishop of Reims. The main vice of
Hincmar of Laon is known to have been avarice and, as Peter McKeon
shows, Hincmar of Reims often scolded his nephew for his sin. There were
rumors, transmitted by various contemporary texts, that the bishop of
Laon “became a simonist to satisfy his needs and the demands of his followers, and that he would require gifts from his clergy, while exacting payment from his flock for the performance of his ministry, in violation of the
canons.”71 However, a case can be made for the greed of Hincmar of
Reims, who attempted to strip Wulfadus, bishop of Bourges and abbot of
Saint-Médard of Soissons, of his clerical status, and thereby of his monastic properties.72 Wulfadus was a good friend of Eriugena’s, whose works he
owned in his library.73 Eriugena may thus have borrowed his friend’s
grudge against the powerful archbishop of Reims, in addition to his own
bitterness related to the predestination episode.
Finally, neither Godescalc nor Eriugena had any reason to attack
Hincmar of Laon, since the bishop of Laon did nor persecute Godescalc,
and followed Charles the Bald in extending his protection and patronage
70. Herren, Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae Carmina, 39.
71. McKeon, Hincmar of Laon, 16.
72. Die Konzilien der karolingischen Teilreiche, 860–874, ed. Wilfried Hartmann
(Hanover, 1998), “Troyes, Oktober-November 867,” 239–242. See also Vengeance in
Medieval Europe: A Reader, ed. Daniel Lord Smail, Kelly Gibson (Toronto, 2009), 95, and
Paul Edward Dutton, “Filiolitas: The Short History of One of Eriugena’s Inventions,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 79 (2005), 559–60.
73. M. Cappuyns, “Les ‘Bibli Vulfadi’ et Jean Scot Érigène,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 33 (1966), 137–139; English translation in Carolingian Civilization: A
Reader, ed. Paul Edward Dutton (Peterborough, Ontario, 1996), 466–467. See also John
Marenbon, “Wulfad, Charles the Bald and John Scottus Eriugena,” in Charles the Bald: Court
and Kingdom. Papers Based on a Colloquium Held in London in April 1979, ed. Margaret
Gibson, Janet Nelson (Oxford, 1981), 375–383.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

67

to John and the Irish community in Laon.74 Yet, both theologians had reasons to bear a grudge against the archbishop of Reims.
To sum up, many of the aspects presented above connect the Hincmar
mock epitaph to someone from the circle of Eriugena, if not to the great
thinker himself. Such are the attribution to Eriugena in V, the insular features of A, the eighth-century Irish tradition of Victorius’s Calculus, the
connection of H with the Greek vocabularies produced in the environment
of the Irishmen Martin and John Scottus at Laon, the “IANHC” note in
H, the Eriugenian preoccupation with Boethius’s Consolatio, but also the
textual evidence provided by the Hellenistic forms igcmarus and cleptes.
Even if it was actually authored by Godescalc, as A believes, the epitaph
was soon copied in the Irish milieux of Laon, Soissons or Reims, so that V
attributed it to John Scottus. By referring unspecifically to one of the contemporary Hincmars, the cruel epitaph killed two birds with one stone; yet,
its readers may rather have thought of the influential and quarrelsome
archbishop of Reims, who was possibly still alive when some bitter Irishman penned the cruel text in the margin of a school manuscript containing
the works of Boethius, Victorius or a Latin-Greek vocabulary.

74. On the political context of Eriugena’s activity, see Peter Godman, Poets and Emperors. Frankish Politics and Carolingian Poetry (Oxford, 1987).

68

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY
APPENDIX
Edition of the Hincmar mock epitaph

The a-text
Hic iacet igcmarus, cleptes, uehementer
auarus,
Hoc solum fecit nobile quod periit.
________________________________

The b-text
Hic iacet incmarus, cleptes,
uehementer auarus,
Sordidus, instabili madescit rore
pericli.
_____________________________

MSS: A, M, V
________________________________

MSS: H, H1
_____________________________

Before the distich: GOTISCALT A;
Hoc epitaphium composuit Iohannes
Scotus licet sapiens hereticus tamen V.
After the distich, the following gloss in A:
clepit .i. furo inde d(icitu)r cleptis et
clepus; the following distich in M:
Remis misit equum mulum burdegula
nullum/ Aut mulus ueniat aut equus
huc redeat.
________________________________

After the distich, a different hand adds
in H: Hoc solum fecit nobile quod
periit. Scansion marks in H.

igcmarus] igma**us A; hincmarus M
cleptes] clepthes M
uehementer] et semper V
solum] tantum A
fecit] gescit A; gessit M

instabili] instabilis H

_____________________________

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE 1. A, detail

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

FIGURE 2. V, detail

FIGURE 3. H, detail

FIGURE 4. H1, detail

FIGURE 5. M, detail

69

70

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

FIGURE 6. A-Attendorn, private collection (Göbel family), s. n., s. IX3, NE
France?, recto of Victorius fol.

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

71

FIGURE 7. V-Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Reg. lat. 240, s. IXex,
Laon/Fulda?, fol. 121v.

72

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

FIGURE 8. H-London, The British Library, MS Harley 2688, s. IX/X,
NE France/Alemannic area?, fol. 18v

ADRIAN PAPAHAGI

FIGURE 9. H1-London, The British Library, MS Harley 3095, s. IX/X,
NE France/Alemannic area?, fol. 146v

73

74

IN THE MARGINS OF THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY

FIGURE 10. M-Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 14569, s. XI,
Tegernsee?, fol. 72v

As Big as a Universe:
Johannes Kepler on the Immensities of
Stars and of Divine Power
CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY*
Johannes Kepler accepted Tycho Brahe’s claim that the Copernican
hypothesis required all stars to be giant, something Brahe found absurd.
Kepler argued in his De Stella Nova that some stars were larger than
Brahe’s size for the entire universe. He also used the issue of star sizes
to argue against Giordano Bruno’s infinite universe. Kepler’s acceptance of Brahe’s ideas on star sizes appears in a variety of his writings,
including his response to the anti-Copernican essay by Msgr. Francesco
Ingoli that cited the star size issue, an essay Galileo had felt was influential in the rejection of the Copernican hypothesis by authorities in
Rome in 1616. Kepler’s writings illustrate how certain supporters of
Copernicus viewed the universe of stars and relied on divine power to
undergird that view. Decades after Kepler, the discovery that the star
size problem rested on a formerly unrecognized optical effect both freed
the Copernican hypothesis from Brahe’s charge of absurdity and
negated Kepler’s argument against Bruno.
Keywords: Johannes Kepler, Tyco Brahe, Giordano Bruno, Francesco Ingoli, Copernicus, star size argument, Sun, heliocentrism.

H

ow did Johannes Kepler handle Tycho Brahe’s “star size” argument
against the Copernican hypothesis? This is the argument that said
that the Copernican hypothesis required the stars to surpass greatly (to the
point of absurdity, in Brahe’s opinion) the Sun in size. Christiaan Huygens called this Brahe’s “principal argument” against Copernicus.1 It was
a key argument in the essay Msgr. Francesco Ingoli wrote to Galileo in
1616 shortly before the authorities in Rome rejected the Copernican

*The author is Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Jefferson Community & Technical College, Louisville, KY. Email: christopher.graney@ kctcs.edu.
1. Christiaan Huygens, The Celestial Worlds Discover’d: or, Conjectures Concerning the
Inhabitants, Plants, and Productions of the Worlds in the Planets, 2nd ed. (London, 1722),
145.

75

76

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

hypothesis. We might expect that Kepler was able to demolish easily this
argument. However, an examination of Kepler’s writings reveals that he
simply accepted the substance of the argument. Indeed, Kepler argued for
a heliocentric universe in which the Sun was surrounded by giant stars—
so giant, in fact, that every star seen in the sky, even the smallest, was a
globe of such size as to fill the orbit of the Earth, while the largest were
beyond the size estimated by Brahe for the entire universe. Kepler simply
claimed that stars the size of a universe were possible, thanks to divine
power, and more reasonable than the geocentric alternative. His views
regarding stars and their sizes are consistent with those of other Copernicans such as Thomas Digges, Christoph Rothmann, and Phillips Lansbergen, and they are consistent with the portrayal of Copernican views by
anti-Copernican critics like Christoph Scheiner and Johann Georg
Locher, and Giovanni Battista Riccioli.
A convenient point from which to begin a study of Kepler’s views on
this matter is the rejoinder he wrote in 1618 in response to an anti-Copernican essay that Galileo believed to have been particularly influential—the
essay by Ingoli.2 Ingoli had written the essay to Galileo in early 1616, prior
to the rejection of heliocentrism by the Congregation of the Index in Rome
in early March of that year.3 Galileo regarded Ingoli’s essay to have been
an important factor in that rejection.4 Maurice Finocchiaro has written
that the Inquisition in Rome had probably commissioned Ingoli to write
an expert opinion on the heliocentrism controversy; Finocchiaro has
described Ingoli’s essay as being the chief direct basis for the rejection of
the Copernican hypothesis by Inquisition consultants in late February of
1616.5 Ingoli presented Galileo with twenty-two anti-Copernican arguments, four of which Ingoli described as “theological,” the rest of which he
described as “mathematical” and “physical.” Ingoli did not ask Galileo to
respond to all the arguments but rather to the better ones from the mathematical and physical arguments. The mathematical and physical argu-

2. Paolo Galluzi, The Lynx and the Telescope: The Parallel Worlds of Federico Cesi and
Galileo (Leiden, 2017), 240; Kepler’s response to Ingoli’s essay can be found as “Responsio ad
Ingoli disputationem de systemate,” in Nuovi Studi Galileiani, ed. Antonio Favaro (Venice,
1891), 173–84.
3. Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the
Two Affairs (Dordrect, 2010), 72; Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary
History (Berkeley, 1989), 347n2; Annibale Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the
Church (Rome, 1994), 240–41.
4. Galileo’s discussion of this matter can be found in his own 1624 reply to Ingoli, published in translation in Finocchiaro, Galileo Affair, 155.
5. Finocchiaro, Defending Copernicus, 72.

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

77

ments ranged widely in quality, but the more cogent ones were taken
directly from Brahe with Ingoli citing the latter by page number.6
Brahe based the star size argument on the requirement of the heliocentric theory that the stars be very distant in order to explain why Earth’s
annual motion around the Sun produced no corresponding visible annual
changes in their appearance—no “annual parallax.” For instance, stars were
not seen to grow brighter and dimmer owing to Earth moving toward and
away from them as it journeyed around the Sun. To explain this Brahe
noted the orbit of the Earth was like a point in comparison to the vast distance to the stars—negligible in size. The stars have a measurable apparent
size as seen from Earth. He had measured these sizes. He determined that
the more prominent or “first magnitude” stars measured a little less than a
tenth the apparent diameter of the Moon—a little less than three minutes
of arc since the Moon has an apparent diameter of approximately thirty
minutes, or one half of one degree. At the vast distance required for the
stars in the heliocentric hypothesis, these apparent sizes translated into
enormous physical sizes. Were Copernicus correct, every one of the stars
would have to dwarf the Sun. The Sun would be a unique, small body in a
universe of giants.7
A decade after Brahe died, Johann Georg Locher, working under his
mentor, the German Jesuit astronomer Christoph Scheiner, neatly summarized Brahe’s objection in their 1614 book Disquisitiones Mathematicae.
Locher wrote that, in the Copernican hypothesis, the Earth’s orbit is like a
point within the universe of stars; but the stars, having measurable sizes, are
larger than points; therefore, in the Copernican hypothesis every star must
be larger than Earth’s orbit, and thus immensely larger than the Sun itself.8
The giant stars of the Copernican hypothesis stood in contrast to the
more commensurate star sizes found in Brahe’s own hypothesis, a hybrid
geocentric (or geo-heliocentric) hypothesis in which the Sun, Moon, and
stars circled an immobile Earth, while the planets circled the Sun (Figure
2). Brahe’s hypothesis was observationally and mathematically identical to
the Copernican hypothesis insofar as the Sun, Moon, and planets were
6. Ingoli’s essay, with an English translation and with analysis of the arguments he
presents, can be found in Christopher M. Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science Against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (Notre Dame, IN, 2015),
66–76, 164–195.
7. Graney, Setting Aside, 32–38.
8. Christopher M. Graney, Mathematical Disquisitions: The Booklet of Theses Immortalized by Galileo (Notre Dame, IN, 2017), 30.

78

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

FIGURE 1. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), German Astronomer and Mathematician (Wikimedia Commons).

concerned. However, since the Earth did not move relative to the stars in
Brahe’s geocentric hypothesis, there was no expectation of annual parallax, and thus no need for the stars to be distant in order to explain the
absence of observable parallax. Brahe had the stars located just beyond
Saturn. Since the stars were roughly similar to Saturn in both distance and
in their appearance in the night sky, they had to be similar to Saturn in
physical size, too. In Brahe’s hypothesis, the sizes of the Earth, Sun,
Moon, and planets were commensurate, with the Moon being smallest
and the Sun being largest, as opposed to the case in the Copernican
hypothesis, where every last star dwarfed Sun, Moon, and planets (see
Figures 3 and 4).9 After the advent of the telescope, various astronomers,
starting with Simon Marius in his Mundus Jovialis of 1614, would agree
that, while the telescope showed that the size measurements by Brahe
were too large, the telescope still showed the stars to have measureable
disks, and yet the telescope also detected no annual parallax.10 And so the
argument remained. As Locher had said, so long as the apparent sizes of
stars were measurable, but the motion of Earth was not, then every star
must be larger than Earth’s orbit.
9. Graney, Setting Aside, 32–38.
10. Graney, Setting Aside, 45–59.

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

79

FIGURE 2. Tycho Brahe’s hypothesis. Earth is immobile at center. Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn circle the Sun as in the Copernican hypothesis, while the
Sun circles the Earth (as do the Moon and stars).11

Ingoli raised the star size issue early in his essay. His second and third
arguments were both mathematical arguments pertaining to matters
related to parallax. These two arguments—one which Ingoli cites as
coming from Sacrobosco, the thirteenth-century author of a long-standard
astronomy textbook, the other from Ptolemy, the ancient astronomer who
was the author of the Almagest—cite two different effects that would be
visible in the fixed stars, were the Earth not in the center of the universe,
as it would not be, were it orbiting the Sun. The Copernican answer to such
arguments was, of course, that the orbit of Earth is of negligible size compared to the distance to the stars, so the effects are not seen. At this point
Ingoli brings in the star size question, saying:
Nor does the solution [to the two arguments] entirely satisfy by which is
said: the diameter of the circle of the orbit of Earth in comparison to the
vast distance of the eighth orb [of stars] from us to be made so small [as
to yield an effect too small to measure].12

11. Johann Georg Locher, Disquisitiones Mathematicae, de Controversiis et Novitatibus
Astronomici (Ingolstadt, 1614), 52.
12. Graney, Setting Aside, 71, 167.

80

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

He then cites a page of Brahe’s Astronomical Letters and calculations showing that the stars would have to be distant by 16,506,000 semidiameters of
the Earth in the Copernican system for annual parallax to be too small to
detect, versus 14,000 in Brahe’s hypothesis—this being the first time that
Ingoli mentions him in the essay. Ingoli continues:
[S]uch a truly great distance not only reveals the universe to be asymmetric, but also clearly proves, either the fixed stars to be unable to operate
in these lower regions, on account of the excessive distance of them; or
the fixed stars to be of such size, as to surpass or equal the size of the orbit
circle of Earth itself.13

This star size objection is arguably the strongest argument in Ingoli’s
essay (unsurprisingly, it being Brahe’s “principal argument”). Albert van
Helden has written that “Tycho’s logic was impeccable; his measurements
above reproach. A Copernican simply had to accept the results of this
argument” and agree that the stars were giant. Yet Paolo Gulluzi has
recently written that Kepler “had no difficulty in demolishing Ingoli’s weak
arguments.”14 Granted that Ingoli’s arguments were largely Brahe’s, and at
least one was not weak, that seems unlikely.
Indeed, in his response to Ingoli’s essay Kepler did not demolish the star
size argument; rather he did exactly as Van Helden said: he simply accepted
that the stars were giant. Referring to his De Stella Nova, Kepler writes:
[Ingoli] declares such a great distance of the fixed stars from the Earth to
be ‘asymmetrical’; he speaks ungeometrically concerning a geometrical
thing: no size is made ‘asymmetrical’ on account of an exceedingly great
quantity, because indeed ‘asymmetry’ considers quantities rendered
according to a subject. . . . But if he speaks concerning the form of the
universe, I ask, based on what laws might he examine the works of the
hands of God, so as to declare them out of proportion? I have shown [in
De Stella Nova] the proportion to be greater between a mite in the skin
of the hand of a man and that [120-foot] African serpent. . . . Why, in
the eyes of Ingoli, is a distance of 16,506,000 semidiameters of Earth
excessive, but not 14,000? Men make what comparison? Based on what
human examples might the confident mind of Ingoli reject the works of
God as excessive? Has he said, the fixed stars are unable to operate on
Earth? We may say nothing concerning operating, a thing not acknowledged by all: we may say something concerning illumination, which is the
operation which lies open to the eyes. Why might those fixed stars,

13. Graney, Setting Aside, 71–72, 167–168.
14. Galluzi, 240.

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

81

which illuminate through 14,000 semidiameters, not illuminate through
16,506,000? If they are a thousand times more remote, they will also be
that many times larger: thus the effect of the illumination of the Earth
will remain the same.15

Thus Kepler readily grants that a thousand-fold increase in the distance
of the stars requires a thousand-fold increase in their physical size as well.
Referring to De Stella Nova, he writes, “I have dissolved the pretended
absurdity of the magnitudes of the fixed stars”16 in the Copernican hypothesis. It is the absurdity that Kepler claims to dissolve, not the magnitudes.
Kepler refers to Chapter 16 of De Stella Nova.17 There we find him
discussing Brahe’s view on giant stars:
Brahe finds a lack of elegance in the most perfect of works, if the vastness
of the sphere of one of the fixed stars be so insane; the meagerness of all
the wandering stars [planets] so contemptible. How huge the fault in the
human body, he says, if the finger, if the nose, might surpass by many
times the bulk of the whole remainder of the body.18

15. Kepler, “Responsio,” 175: “Primo dicit tantam distantiam fixarum respectu telluris
esse ασυμετρον, non Geometrice loquitur de Geometrica re: nulla magnitudo fit ασυμμετρος
propter quantitatem nimis magnam, quia ασυμμετρια habet quidem quantitates relatas pro
subiecto.... Si autem loquitur de conformatione mundi, quaero ad quas leges examinet opera
manuum Dei, ut ea improportionata dicat. Ostendi maiorem esse proportionem inter scirum
animalculum subcutaneum in manu hominis, et serpentem illum africanum.... cur nimium est
in oculis Ingoli quod continent 16506000 semidiametros Terrae, nec est nimium quod 14000
continetur? quid simile faciunt homines? quibus exemplis humanis confirmatus Ingoli animus
repudiet opera Dei ut nimia? Convincit, inquit, fixas nihil in terram operari? nihil de operatione dicamus, re non ab omnibus confessa: dicamus de illuminatione, quae est operatio quae
patet oculis, cur quae per 14000 semidiametros illuminant, non illuminent per 16506000? Si
millies ducenties sunt remotiores, erunt et toties maiores: ita effectus illuminationis terrae
manebit idem.” In the translation, italics are my addition, and words in ‘single quotation
marks’ are words Kepler wrote in Greek.
16. Kepler, “Responsio,” 175: “de stella nova... ubi pluribus dissolvi praetensam absurditatem magnitudinis fixarum”
17. For secondary sources that discuss Chapter 16 see Patrick J. Boner, “Kepler’s
Copernican Campaign and the New Star of 1604,” in Change and Continuity in Early Modern
Cosmology, ed. Patrick J. Boner (New York, 2011), 101–106; Albert Van Helden, Measuring
the Universe: Cosmic Dimensions from Aristarchus to Halley (Chicago, 1985), 62–63; Robert S.
Westman, The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order (Berkeley,
2011), 398–99. For a complete English translation of Chapter 16, see Christopher M.
Graney, “Of Mites and Men: Johannes Kepler on Stars and Size (with an English translation
of Chapter 16 of his 1606 De Stella Nova)” (2018) https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03313. This
translation has not been peer reviewed.
18. Johannes Kepler, De Stella Nova, (Prague, 1606), 83: “Braheus... dum concinnitatem in perfectissimo opere desiderat; si Sphaerae unius fixarum tam insana sit vastitas;

82

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

Here also we find a discussion of that proportion of length mentioned by
Kepler in his response to Ingoli, between a 120-foot serpent noted by Pliny
and a mite. He remarks that the length of the snake exceeds that of the
mite by a factor of 100,000. Then he compares the size of human beings to
the Earth and to the universe. A variety of sizes clearly exists in the universe.19 Thus Kepler finds no problem stating that the distance from the
Sun to the fixed stars holds the same proportion to the orbit of Saturn as
the distance from the Sun to Saturn holds to the diameter of the Sun itself.
The Sun seen from Earth has an apparent diameter of thirty minutes.
Saturn is ten times farther from the Sun than Earth. Thus the Sun seen
from Saturn would have an apparent diameter of three minutes. And
therefore, says Kepler, the orbit of Saturn seen from the fixed stars would
have an apparent diameter of three minutes.20
Kepler argues that what is commensurate in a Copernican universe are
speeds. “The perfection of the universe is motion, which is, as it were, a certain life of it,” he states.21 In a Copernican universe, speeds range from
Saturn, moving at 300 German miles per hour, to Mercury, moving at
1000—“a beautiful proportion,” he writes, “where what is nearer to the quiescent Sun (the dispenser of all movement) is always swifter.”22 Even the
speeds of the day and night sides of Earth, and the velocity of the moon, fall
into this same general range. Everything in the Copernican solar system
moves at speeds ranging from about 250 to about 1250 miles per hour.
Kepler contrasts this with the geocentric universe:
Go now to Ptolemy and the ancient opinion; you will find everything
more incredible. In that, the semidiameter of the sphere of the fixed stars
occupies twenty thousand semidiameters of Earth. The circumference
therefore will be 63,00023—truly a reasonable number, compared to the
Copernican, but which all is said to go round in one day. Therefore 2625

mobilium vero omnium tam contempta exilitas. Quemadmodum, ait, in corpore humano
ingens vitium, si digitus, si nasus, multis partibus superet molem totius reliqui corporis.”
19. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 87–88.
20. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 86–87.
21. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 86: “Mundi perfectio est motus, quae ejus quasi quaedam
vita est.”
22. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 83: “Pulchra proportio, ubi semper velocior, qui est Soli
quiescenti, motusque omnis dispensatori propinquior.” Kepler’s German mile is equal to 4.4
English miles—Van Helden, Measuring the Universe, 177.
23. 20,000 × π = 63,000. As circumference is π times diameter rather than semidiameter, this number is too small by half. There are a variety of such typos in Kepler’s text of Chapter 16.

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

83

semidiameters (each of which contains 860 miles) are covered in one
hour.24 Behold here what to me is an immense distinction. In the view of
Ptolemy, Saturn is the nearest to the fixed stars, such that it will almost
touch them. Following Copernicus, in one hour it traverses 300 miles;
following Ptolemy, 2,257,500 miles.25 Saturn must be believed to be
7,52526 times swifter under Ptolemy, than under Copernicus. Whoever
attempts mentally to comprehend this incredible velocity is overcome just
as much as, and indeed more severely than, someone who attempts to
comprehend the Copernican immensity.27

Kepler notes that Tycho Brahe’s hypothesis yields a somewhat more
compact universe, and thus somewhat lower speeds, but the geocentric
speed problem remains.28 He adds that it is more credible to have a vast
thing with no motion, than a small thing with great motion.29 He also
notes that size means nothing to God:
Where magnitude waxes, there perfection wanes, and nobility follows
diminution in bulk. The sphere of the fixed stars according to Copernicus
is certainly most large; but it is inert, no motion. The universe of the
movables [the planets] is next. Now this—so much smaller, so much
more divine—has accepted that so admirable, so well-ordered motion.
Nevertheless, that place neither contains animating faculty, nor does it
reason, nor does it run about. It goes, provided that it is moved. It has
not developed, but it retains that impressed to it from the beginning.
What it is not, it will never be. What it is, is not made by it—the same
endures, as was built. Then comes this our little ball, the little cottage of
us all, which we call the Earth: the womb of the growing, herself fashioned by a certain internal faculty. The architect of marvelous work, she
kindles daily so many little living things from herself—plants, fishes,

24. 63,000 / 24 = 2625
25. 860 × 2625 = 2,257,500
26. 2,257,500 / 300 = 7,525
27. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 84: “Ito nunc ad Ptolemaeum, & antiquam sententiam;
omnia invenies incredibiliora. In illa semidiameter Sphaere fixarum vicies millenas Telluris
semidiametros possidet; ambitus igitur erit sexagies ter millium. Modesta sane multitudo,
comparata ad Copernicanam; sed quae omnis in uno die circumire dicitur. Debentur igitur
uni horae semidiametri 2625: quarum quaelibet 860 milliaria continet. Hic vide mihi immensum discrimen; Saturnus, qui est apud Ptolemeum fixis proximus, ut eas tantum non tangat,
Copernico in una hora trajicit per 300 milliaria, Ptolemaeo vicies bis centena millia quinquagies septies mille quingenta milliaria. Credendus est igitur velocior apud Ptolomaeum, quam
est apud Copernicum, septies mille, quingenties vicies quinquies. Quicunque tentaverit mente
comprehendere hanc incredibilem velocitatem; aeque fatigatur, & vehementius etiam, quam
qui Copernicanam immensitatem.”
28. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 86.
29. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 85.

84

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE
insects—as she easily may scorn the rest of the bulk in view of this her
nobility. Lastly behold if you will the little bodies which we call the animals. What smaller than these is able to be imagined in comparison to
the universe? But there now behold feeling, and voluntary motions—an
infinite architecture of bodies. Behold if you will, among those, these fine
bits of dust, which are called Men; to whom the Creator has granted
such, that in a certain way they may beget themselves, clothe themselves,
arm themselves, teach themselves an infinity of arts, and daily accomplish
the good; in whom is the image of God; who are, in a certain way, lords
of the whole bulk. And what is it to us, that the body of the universe has
for itself a great breadth, while the soul lacks for one? We may learn well
therefore the pleasure of the Creator, who is author both of the roughness of the large masses, and of the perfection of the smalls. Yet he glories not in bulk, but ennobles those that he has wished to be small.
In the end, through these intervals from Earth to the Sun, from Sun
to Saturn, from Saturn to the fixed stars, we may learn gradually to
ascend toward recognizing the immensity of divine power.30

This brings Kepler to the question of star sizes. Since he has stated that
the orbit of Saturn would have an apparent diameter of three minutes as
seen from the sphere of the stars, any star with an apparent diameter of
three minutes as seen from Earth must be equal in physical size to the orbit
of Saturn—that is, to the entire solar system. Hence Sirius, the most
prominent of all the stars, which according to Kepler appears larger than
three minutes, must be larger than the entire solar System, and the awe30. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 88: “Ubi superat magnitudo, ibi deficit perfectio, & in molis
deminutionem succedit nobilitas. Amplissima sane est Copernico Sphaera fixarum; sed iners,
motu nullo. Sequitur Mundus mobilis. Hic jam quanto minor tanto divinior quod motum
accepit tam admirabilem, tam ordinatum. Neque tamen vegetante facultate constat locus iste;
neque ratiocinatur, neque discurrit: quod agit (dum movetur,) non didicit, sed impressum sibi
a principio retinet; quod non est, neque erit unquam; quod est, id a seipso non est factus; idem
manet, qui conditus est. Succedit ergo pilula haec nostra, tuguriolum nostrum; quod Tellurem
dicimus, matrix vegetabilium, ipsa intus informata facultate quadam, mirabilium operum
architectatrice; quae accendit de se ipsa tot stirpium, tot piscium, tot insectorum animulas
quotidie; ut facile molem reliquamprae hac sua nobilitate contemnat. Denique vide mihi corpuscula, quae animalia dicimus, quibus quid exilius in comparatione mundi fingi potest? At
ibi jam sensus, & voluntarij motus, architectura corporum infinita. Vide mihi inter illa, pulvisculos hos, quos Homines dicunt; quibus Creator hoc dedit, ut quodammodo a seipsis nascantur, seipsos vestiant, arment, doceant infinitas artes, & quotidie proficiant in melius; in
quibus Dei imago; qui domini quodammodo sunt totius molis. Et quis est nostrum, qui optet
sibi corpus, Mundi amplitudine, ut pro ea careat anima? Discamus igitur creatoris bene placitum; qui & rudis molis, & minutorum perfectionis author est: nec tamen mole gloriatur, sed
nobilitat illa, quae minuta esse voluit. Denique per haec intervalla a Tellure ad Solem, a Sole
ad Saturnum, a Saturno ad fixas, discamus paulatim conscendere ad agnoscendum divinae
potentiae immensitatem.”

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

85

some “new star” or nova of 1604 that is the subject of his book must be
even larger than Sirius:
I have gladly inserted so much here concerning the objections to the
Copernican vastness of the fixed stars, because it all pertains to the
incredible magnitude that must be estimated for the new star. For if it
occupies only four minutes (the size Sirius appears), then through this
hypothesis of Copernicus it is much greater than the whole machinery of
the movables [the planetary system]. For earlier we were granting to that
machinery only three minutes, were it to be seen from the fixed stars.31

It follows from Kepler’s numbers that Sirius and the nova must each
rival or exceed the size of an entire geocentric universe, since, as he has
noted, in geocentric hypotheses the fixed stars lay just beyond Saturn. Furthermore, any star whose physical size was the same as Earth’s orbit,
namely one tenth the size of Saturn’s orbit, would have an apparent diameter of three tenths of a minute, or eighteen seconds. This is the apparent
diameter that Brahe had determined for the sixth-magnitude stars (those
barely visible to the eye). Since according to Kepler the physical diameter
of the Sun is less than one hundredth that of Earth’s orbit, clearly every last
star in the sky utterly dwarfs the Sun. To Kepler, the Sun and its planets
are surrounded by giants, and only by giants.
Later on, in Chapter 21 of De Stella Nova, Kepler discusses further the
link between stellar sizes and distances. Regarding stars in Orion’s belt that
all have an apparent diameter of about two minutes he writes:
Certainly should any one [of these stars] be higher by two, three, a hundred times, it will therefore be larger by two, three, a hundred times.
Indeed, you may say it is elevated however much you like—you will never
arrange things so that it may be seen by us to not have a diameter of two
minutes. Consequently the diameter will always be two thousandths, one
thousandth, or some such portion of the distance from us. . . . And so by
whatever amount anyone moves the stars up further into an infinite altitude, by that amount he creates more monstrous bulks therein.32

31. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 89: “Et haec, de objecta Copernico vastitate fixarum, tanto
libentius inserui, quod pertinuerint ad incredibilem novi sideris magnitudinem aestimandam.
Nam si quatuor solum minuta occupavit (quantus Sirius apparet) jam per hanc hypothesin
Copernici tota machina mobilium multo fuit major; ut cui tria solum minuta tribuebamus
supra, si quis illam a fixis respiceret.”
32. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 108: “Certe ut quaelibet duplo, triplo, centuplo altior, ita
duplo, triplo centuplo erit major. Quippe quantumcunque dicas elevatam; nunquam efficies,
ut non videatur habere a nobis duum minutorum diametrum. Semper igitur diameter distanciae a nobis erit pars bis millesima, aut millesima, aut tale quippiam....

86

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

FIGURE 3. The relative sizes of celestial bodies calculated by Tycho Brahe, based on
his observations and measurements, for (from left to right, upper row) the Sun,
Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, as well as for (lower row)
a large star and a mid-sized star in a hybrid geocentric universe (where the stars lie
just beyond Saturn, as in Figure 2). Sun, stars, and planets all fall into a fairly consistent range of sizes. (Courtesy of the Author)

FIGURE 4. The arrowed dots are those in Figure 3 above, reproduced to scale compared to Brahe’s calculated relative size for a mid-size star in the Copernican universe (where the stars lie at vast distances, and thus must be enormous to explain
their apparent sizes as seen from Earth). Brahe said the huge Copernican stars were
absurd. (Courtesy of the Author)

Itaque quo magis quis stellas in infinitam subvehit altitudinem; hoc monstrosiores illic
fingit moles; quales ex hoc nostro mundi loco non cernuntur.” See Alexander Koyré, From the
Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Baltimore, 1957), 68, for a looser translation, but note
that Koyré does not translate the double negative of “you will never arrange things so that it
may be seen by us to not have a diameter of two minutes [nunquam efficies, ut non videatur
habere a nobis duum minutorum diametrum],” writing instead “you will never obtain that it
would be seen by us as having a diameter of two minutes.”

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

87

Kepler writes this as part of an argument against an infinite universe.
Indeed, he turns Brahe’s star size argument to his own purposes: if the universe goes out to infinity as Giordano Bruno has said, then all sorts of
problems arise in the sizes of the stars.33 A more explicit example of this,
also from the discussion against Bruno:
If some stars are infinitely high, they themselves will also be infinite in
themselves by bulk of body. For, imagine some star which seems to subtend a definite angle—suppose four minutes. The breadth of such a body
is always one thousandth of its distance, as is absolutely certain from
geometry. Therefore, if the distance is infinite, the diameter of the star is
one thousandth part of infinity. But all the fractional parts of the infinite
must themselves be infinite. Consequently such a star will be infinite. But
at the same time it is also finite, because it has a shape. . . .34

Accordingly, when Kepler says that in De Stella Nova he dissolved the
pretended absurdity of giant stars in the Copernican hypothesis, he clearly
means that he has successfully argued that giant stars are not absurd. He
does not intend that he has argued against the existence of giant stars, for
De Stella Nova certainly endorses Brahe’s argument that all stars in the
Copernican universe must be giant.
The Ingoli rejoinder and De Stella Nova are not the only places where
Kepler writes on these matters. In his Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo of
1610 we find the following, as part of a discussion on the nature of stars,
against Bruno’s infinite universe:
Will my opponent tell me that the stars are very far away from us? This
does not help his cause at all. For the greater their distance, the more
does every single one of them outstrip the Sun in diameter.35

In his 1618 Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae we again find the
example of the stars in Orion’s belt and the argument against stars being

33. Koyré, 58–87.
34. Kepler, De Stella Nova, 109: “si fixae aliquae sunt infinite altae, erunt ipsae in seipsis
infinita etiam mole corporum. Finge namque stellam aliquam, quae videtur certo sub angulo,
puta minutorum quatuor; hujusmodi corporis amplitudo semper est millesima distantiae,
quod certissimum est, ex Geometria. Ergo si distancia est infinita; diameter igitur stellae, est
infiniti pars millesima. At omnes infiniti partes aliquotae, infinitae & ipsae sunt necessario.
Stella igitur hujusmodi erit infinita. At simul & finita, quia figurata”; translation borrowed
from Edward Rosen, Kepler’s Conversation with Galileo’s Sidereal Messenger (New York, 1965),
129, with minor modifications.
35. Rosen, 35.

88

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

at infinite distances, again all part of an argument against any infinity of
the universe.36
Clearly Kepler was a Copernican who believed that the universe as a
whole is heliocentric—that our solar system is surrounded by a finite universe of distant but giant stars that all vastly exceed the Sun in size, and
that the whole thing testifies to the Power of God. He seems to not have
been alone. Christoph Rothmann granted to Brahe whatever sizes for stars
he wanted. “It reckons that the greater the King, so much more greater and
larger the palace befitting his Majesty,” Rothmann wrote Tycho, asking
him what palace is too large for God. Thomas Digges described the starry
universe as the “palace of felicity,” full of innumerable stars “far excelling
our Sun both in quantity and quality,” the very court of celestial angels and
the dwelling place of the Elect. Philips Lansbergen proposed that the stars
were God’s army and the palace guard of Heaven itself—their vast sizes
showing them to be suitable warriors for, and their vast numbers (as
revealed by the telescope) showing them to be suitably numerous to make
an army large enough for God—a view Lansbergen believed to be wellsupported by scripture.37
Thus the anti-Copernicans Locher and Scheiner noted that Copernicus’s “minions” invoked God in response to the star size question. “They go
on,” Locher wrote in Disquisitiones Mathematicae, “about how from this
everyone may better perceive the majesty of the Creator. This is laughable,
since the stars appear so small, and even the most learned person cannot
easily perceive this monstrous size.”38 The anti-Copernican Riccioli also
dismissed appeals to divine power in his Almagestum Novum of 1651. Riccioli, who had brought the telescope to bear on the star size question and
still found that in a Copernican universe Sirius might be larger than
Brahe’s entire universe, noted how Brahe’s star size objection could be
answered by appealing to the speed issue, but he dismissed this answer.
Either the rotation of the Earth or the rotation of the stars causes the rising
and setting of the stars, Riccioli said, and in either case, that which rotates
turns though one circumference per day—proportionally the rates of
motion are exactly the same either way. As for appealing to the power of
God, that answer cannot be refuted, said the Riccioli, but it does not satisfy
the prudent. Besides, he said, if divine power can be called in as an explanation for the difficult aspects of a hypothesis, could not the geocentric
36. Koyré, 58–87.
37. On Rothmann, Digges, and Lansbergen, see Graney, Setting Aside, 77–85.
38. Graney, Mathematical Disquisitions, 29.

CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY

89

FIGURE 5. A star as seen through a small aperture telescope.39 This appearance of a
sphere of measurable size is entirely spurious—an artifact of optics, namely the diffraction of light waves. However, early telescopic astronomers took such telescopic
images to be the physical bodies of stars.40

hypothesis’s vast speeds also be explained via divine power?41 Thus whereas
Johannes Kepler wrote that he had dissolved Tycho Brahe’s star size objection to the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, that objection still
carried force almost five decades later.
What would answer Brahe’s objection would not be comparisons to
geocentric speeds, or discussions of the sizes of snakes and mites, or appeals
to divine power. Rather it would be the discovery that the apparent sizes of
stars, whether measured visually or with a telescope, were the spurious
product of optical systems, a product which gave no indication of the true
sizes of stars (see Figure 5). Ingoli’s suggestion, that a possible answer to
Brahe’s star-size argument was that the stars might operate differently, was
39. John F. W. Herschel, Treatises on Physical Astronomy. Light and Sound Contributed
to the Encyclopœdia Metropolitana (London, 1828), 491 and Plate 9.
40. Christopher M. Graney and Timothy P. Grayson, “On the Telescopic Disks of
Stars—a Review and Analysis of Stellar Observations from the Early 17th through the
Middle 19th Centuries,” Annals of Science 68 (2011), 351–373.
41. Graney, Setting Aside, 133, 137–38.

90

AS BIG AS A UNIVERSE

crudely correct (but there is no reason to believe that Ingoli had a prescient
understanding of optical systems). The first evidence suggesting the spurious nature of apparent stellar sizes, Jeremiah Horrocks’ observations that
stars winked out instantaneously when being occulted by the Moon, was
not published until a decade after Riccioli’s Almagestum Novum, six decades
after De Stella Nova. Such evidence would eventually show that all stars did
not have to be giants in a Copernican universe.42 Such evidence would also
undermine Kepler’s own use of star sizes to argue for a universe centered on
our solar system. Indeed, recent progress in astronomy has shown that,
while some giant stars do exist that dwarf the Sun, these are relatively rare;
most stars are smaller than the Sun, with a large majority of stars being
small, dim “red dwarfs” that are far outclassed by the Sun. Of course, today
we know that the stars are not centered on our solar system in any way.
Johannes Kepler, like several other Copernicans, did not envision a
universe like the one we know today. He saw a universe in which the Sun
and its planets were unique bodies surrounded by distant, giant stars—in
which every star seen in the sky, even the smallest, was at least the size of
the orbit of the Earth, while the largest stars exceeded the size of an entire
geocentric universe.43 Such giant stars were an absurdity in the eyes of antiCopernicans like Brahe, and unsatisfactory to Ingoli, but Kepler argued that
stars the size of a universe were possible through divine power, and more
reasonable than the geocentric alternative, and that they militated against an
infinite universe. The process by which Copernicans abandoned the “giant
stars” view of the universe and transitioned to a view more like that of today,
thereby freeing heliocentrism from Brahe’s charge of absurdity, should be a
subject of fruitful further study by scholars in a variety of disciplines.

42. Graney, Setting Aside, 147–57.
43. For a longer, more technical discussion regarding Kepler’s view of the heliocentric
universe of stars, what view could be supported by astronomical observations in Kepler’s time,
and what observations eventually brought an end to the viability of the Keplerian view, see
Christopher M. Graney, “The Starry Universe of Johannes Kepler,” Journal for the History of
Astronomy 50 (2019), in press.

Irish Catholics and the Marguillier Controversies
of New Orleans, 1805–1844
JOE REGAN*
This article seeks to provide a detailed examination of the role played by
Irish Catholics in the marguillier (trustee) controversies that transformed the antebellum Church in New Orleans. This case study demonstrates the deep impact Irish clergy and laity members had on the development of the Church there. Irish Catholics were a minority in colonial
New Orleans; however, their rapid increase in numbers following the
1830s made them more conspicuous. By the 1840s, Irish resentment
against the domineering influence of Creole Catholics resulted in the
Irish community becoming the standard-bearer of Episcopal authority
in New Orleans. Nevertheless, the Irish failed to wrestle control of the
Church from New Orleans’s established Creole Catholics. This study
reveals that some of the sternest opponents faced by Irish Catholics in
antebellum New Orleans were their fellow co-religionists, who had a
conflicting vision for the Church.
Keywords: Irish, Catholic, Creole, New Orleans, Trustee, Marguilliers

T

he success of the American Revolutionary War dramatically changed
the lives of Catholics in the thirteen colonies. Most Catholics supported independence and many died for the cause, transforming papists
into patriots in the eyes of their fellow rebels.1 The ideals of the Revolution
altered the American political landscape. The growth and acceptance of
equality and individuality resulted in the emergence of a new religious tolerance that relieved Catholics of old legal restrictions and penalties from
the colonial period. In 1791, the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution granted minority faiths free practice of religion. In the found-

*The author, an independent scholar, specializes in the history of Irish immigrants in the
United States during the nineteenth century. Email: jreganhistory@gmail.com. He received a
Ph.D. in history from the National University of Ireland, Galway, in 2016. He is the coeditor of Agrarian Reform and Resistance in an Age of Globalisation: The Euro-American World
and Beyond, 1780–1914 (New York, 2019).
1. Maura Jane Farrelly, Papist Patriots: The Making of an American Catholic Identity,
(New York, 2012), 3–19 and 219–257.

91

92

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

ing years, America’s Catholics became “accustomed to the republican idea
that ordinary people such as themselves were the source of power in civil
society.”2 Although the clergy of the early Republic supported the political
reality of their new nation, the republican enthusiasm of the emerging
Catholic hierarchy waned with the increasing responsibility of trying to
guide the weak but expanding Church.3 The violent and traumatic
upheavals of the French Revolution served to diminish the American
clergy’s enthusiasm for republicanism even further. The leaning of the
American Catholic hierarchy towards a more conservative and traditional
role led to clashes with lay members who had adopted the spirit of republicanism. This article provides a detailed examination of the role Irish
Catholics played in the controversial marguillier controversies that transformed the Church in New Orleans. It will explore the deep impact Irish
clergy and laity had on the nature of the city’s Catholic Church.
Key Catholic institutions developed first in the American South where
the Church had older and more established roots.4 As Catholic settlers
spread throughout the Republic, they purchased property, built churches,
and formed religious associations. Elected representatives for the parish
held legal responsibility for their church property. These representatives,
known as “trustees,” took control of the temporal concerns of their
churches. The issue of church property caused many problems for the
American hierarchy throughout the antebellum period. In 1785, John Carroll outlined the roots of the problem in his first report to Cardinal
Leonardo Antonelli, Prefect of Propaganda Fide. Carroll, the future bishop
and later archbishop of Baltimore, outlined how property “by which the
priests are supported, is held in the names of individuals and transferred by
the will to devisees. This course was rendered necessary when the Catholic
religion was cramped here by laws and no remedy has yet been found for
this difficulty.”5 The reality of a financially poor and structurally weak early
American Catholic Church provided no alternative to the trustee system.
2. James M. O’Toole, The Faithful: A History of Catholicism in America (Cambridge,
MA, 2008), 59.
3. Jay P. Dolan, The American Catholic Experience: A History from Colonial Times to the
Present, (New York, 1985), 110–118. See also Catherine O’Donnell, “British Atlantic
Catholicism in the Age of Revolution,” in Imagining the British Atlantic After the American
Revolution, ed. Michael Meraize and Saree Makdisi (Buffalo, N.Y, 2015), 87–112.
4. Andrew Stern, “Southern Harmony: Catholic-Protestant Relations in the Antebellum South,” Religion and Culture 17 (2007), 165–190, here 166.
5. Report for the Eminent Cardinal Antonelli Concerning the State of Religion in the
United States of America, March 1, 1785, cited in John Tracy Ellis, ed., Documents of American Catholic History (Milwaukee, 1956), 151–154.

JOE REGAN

93

The model of parish arrangement of other American Protestant
denominations heavily influenced Catholic trustees.6 Elections took place
to select the trustee board, but only pew renters were entitled to vote. This
resulted in the wealthier members of the congregation controlling church
affairs. Trouble, however, occurred in parishes where priests and trustees
clashed.7 Some clashes resulted in schism where the trustees assumed control of clerical appointments.8 Trustee controversy raged throughout the
antebellum period in various parts of the Republic to varying degrees of
severity. The Irish Catholic experience with lay American trusteeism
reflected the diverse immigrant experience in the antebellum period. For
example, in South Carolina, the Irish dominated Charleston’s Catholic
faithful who attempted to identify the Church with American republicanism and demanded a greater voice in church affairs.9 Irish Catholic identity
formation had to adapt to regional and local circumstances. In the antebellum South, Irish Catholics “did not strive to be marginalized outsiders.”10
In New Orleans, Irish settlers found an already established Latin Catholic
community.11 Louisiana, unlike the original thirteen states, had a long history of Catholic trustees, and in New Orleans the Irish failed to wrestle
control of the Church from the city’s established Creole Catholics. Since
1727, the system of trustees or as French ecclesiastical law termed them,
6. Jay P. Dolan, In Search of an American Catholicism: A History of Religion and Culture
in Tension (New York, 2002), 29–31.
7. For examples of such clashes see: John Carroll to Gentlemen (St. Peter’s Trustees,
New York), Jan. 25, 1786, and Jacob Cline, George Lechler, Sen., Adam Premir et al. to
Right Reverend Carroll, Nov., 24, 1787, cited in Ellis, Documents of Catholic History, 155–158
and 164–166.
8. Maura Jane Farrelly, “American Slavery, American Freedom, American Catholicism,” Early American Studies 10 (2012), 69–100, here 74–75; Luca Codignola, “Roman
Catholic Conservatism in a North Atlantic World 1760–1829,” William and Mary Quarterly
64 (2007), 717–766, here 750–756; Patrick Carey, “The Laity’s Understanding of the Trustee
System, 1785–1855,” Catholic Historical Review 64 (1978), 357–376; Carey, “Republicanism
within American Catholicism, 1785–1860,” Journal of the Early Republic 3 (1983), 413–437;
Carey, People, Priests, and Prelates: Ecclesiastical Democracy and the Tensions of Trusteeism
(Notre Dame, IN, 1987).
9. John D. Basil, “South Carolina Catholics before Roman Discipline, 1670–1820,”
Oxford Journal of State and Church 45 (2003), 787–808; R. Frank Saunders & George A.
Rogers, “Bishop John England of Charleston: Catholic Spokesman and Southern Intellectual, 1820–1842,” Journal of the Early Republic 13 (1993), 301–322; David T. Gleeson, The
Irish in the South, 1815–1877 (Chapel Hill, 2001), 76–77.
10. Alan O’Day, “A Conundrum of Irish Diasporic Identity: Mutative Ethnicity,”
Immigrants and Minorities 27 (2009), 319–339; Joe Regan “Irish Frontier Catholicism in the
Antebellum U.S. South,” Irish Studies South 2 (2016), 24–44, here 25.
11. Dennis Clark, “The South’s Irish Catholics: A Case of Cultural Confinement,” in
Catholics in the Old South, 2nd ed., ed. Randall Miller and Jon Wakelyn (Macon, 1999), 205.

94

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

marguilliers, was practiced in New Orleans.12 The term Creole has a broad
and complex range of meaning in Louisiana. In this work, it is used to distinguish upper class whites of French or Spanish origins from more recent
settlers. An examination of the trustee controversies in New Orleans
reveals that the Irish faced some of their sternest opponents in their coreligionists, who held conflicting beliefs about the role of the clergy and the
laity in shaping the antebellum Church. Indeed, by the 1840s, the longheld resentment of the Irish against the domineering influence of the Creoles resulted in the Irish community becoming the standard-bearer of
Episcopal authority.
Irish Catholics and the Church in New Orleans during the
Early Republic
From 1783 to 1802, the Louisiana colony was the centrepiece of the
Spanish holdings in North America, with New Orleans as its capital. Yet,
its inhabitants remained “French in tastes, views, preferences and even in
religious matters.”13 On April 25, 1793, Pope Pius VI established the Diocese of Louisiana and the Two Floridas and appointed Cuban-born Luis
Ignacio Maria de Peñalver y Cárdenas as first bishop of the enormous new
diocese.14 By year’s end, New Orleans was in a state of heightened frenzy
as news of the beheading of King Louis XVI reached the shores of the Gulf
coast. The French Revolution captured the imagination of many in
Louisiana, and revolutionary songs such as “La Marseillaise” and “Ça ira”
were popular throughout the colony.15 Disheartened, Peñalver believed
that his fellow Catholics “do not listen to, or if they do, they disregard, all
exhortations to maintain in its orthodoxy the Catholic faith.” Out of the
“eleven thousand souls composing this parish, hardly three to four hundred
comply with the precept of partaking at least once a year of the Lord’s
Supper.” Peñalver was concerned to find just a “slight spark of faith” in the
diocese. He also felt uneasy because “Rebellion is in their hearts, and their
minds are imbued with the maxims of democracy.”16 In 1799, he reported
that his situation was complicated by the “emigration from the western
12. Charles Edward O’Neill, “‘A Quarter Marked by Sundry Peculiarities’: New
Orleans, Lay Trustees and Père Antoine,” Catholic Historical Review 76 (1990), 235–277, see
254–259.
13. Roger Baudier, The Catholic Church in Louisiana (New Orleans, 1939), 176.
14. James M. Woods, A History of the Catholic Church in the American South, 1513–1900
(Gainesville, 2011), 190–191.
15. Baudier, Catholic Church in Louisiana, 217–218.
16. Luís Ignacio Maria de Peñalver y Cardenas, Religious Conditions in Louisiana,
Nov. 1st, 1795, cited in Ellis, Documents of Catholic History, 181–183.

JOE REGAN

95

parts of the United States . . . a gang of adventurers who have no religion
and acknowledge no God.”17 On July 20, 1801, Pope Pius VII appointed
Peñalver the new Archbishop of Guatemala City, and on November 3,
1801, he departed New Orleans. The Diocese of Louisiana and the Two
Floridas became “sede vacante.”18
Spanish born Padre Francisco Porró y Reinado was selected as the next
bishop of Louisiana. However, the uncertainty over the retransferring of the
Louisiana territory back to France raised concern.19 Bishop Porró never
occupied the diocese, and this threw the Church in Louisiana into ecclesiastical disarray as confusion reigned over who had legitimate control in the
diocese. In 1794, King Charles IV appointed two canonries to the Diocese
of Louisiana and the Two Floridas. The two canons of the cathedral of St.
Louis were Francisco Perez Guerro and Thomas Hassett, a native of County
Waterford, Ireland. However, by November 1801, Guerro complained that
Hassett, along with Irish priest Patrick Walsh, the former Vicar-General of
the dioceses under Peñalver, acted as if they had full powers.20
France re-established political control of New Orleans and the
Louisiana territory in November 1803; but by December, because of the
Louisiana Purchase, the colony became part of the United States. Three
days after Louisiana became a United States territory, Hassett wrote to
Bishop Carroll in Baltimore detailing the confusion in the dioceses, which
would “very soon fall under your Lordships.” Carroll learned that
Louisiana consisted of twenty-one parishes and that under the patronage
of the King of Spain, Irish priests enjoyed a salary of $40 a month, whereas
Spanish and French priests received $30. The diocese was on the brink of
ecclesiastical chaos. Of the twenty-six priests serving under Spanish jurisdiction only four had expressed an intention to stay after the French transfer, and “whether many more than the same number will remain under the
United States, God only knows.” Hassett highly recommended Patrick
Walsh, a man of “unwearied zeal in the service of God.”21 Hassett died
four months later and was shortly followed to the grave by Guerro.
17. Cited in Robert D. Bush, The Louisiana Purchase: A Global Context (New York,
2014), 17.
18. Woods, Catholic Church, 194.
19. Baudier, Church in Louisiana, 249–250.
20. Charles Edward O’Neill, “A Bishop for Louisiana,” in Cross, Crozier and Crucible:
A Volume Celebrating the Bicentennial of a Catholic Diocese in Louisiana, ed. Glenn R. Conrad
(Lafayette, 1993), 105; O’Neill, “Sundry Peculiarities,” 237.
21. Thomas Hassett to Bishop Carroll, Dec. 23, 1803, cited in Peter Guilday, The Life
and Times of John Carroll, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1735–1815 (New York, 1922), 704–705.

96

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

The Louisiana Catholic population showed little enthusiasm for
becoming a United States territory. Charles Cesar Robin was present for
the American takeover in New Orleans and observed one small group
shouted “Huzza,” and that these cheers were made gloomy by “the silence
and quietness of the rest of the crowd of spectators scattered far and wide.
They were French and Spanish and were all moved, and mingled their sighs
and tears.”22 At the time of the Purchase, French-speaking Catholics were
the predominant part of Louisiana’s population. The divergent cultural
legacies of colonial Louisiana and the New American republic with its fragile identity, balancing an “experimental republican government with a constellation of normative values rooted in its British colonial past,” prevented
any easy amalgamation of the people of Louisiana into the United States.23
Federal officials were dubious about the loyalties of Louisiana’s inhabitants
and deferred statehood until 1812. Frustrated Creoles “champed at the bit
for the privilege and power of home rule” during the intervening years.24
The appointed Governor of the Territory of New Orleans, William Claiborne of Virginia, found himself among a people whose language he could
not speak and whose religion and customs were alien to him. Claiborne
found dealing with Louisiana’s diversity to be his “principal difficulty.”25
After the death of the two canons of the cathedral in 1804, the chain of
ecclesiastical authority was again uncertain. Patrick Walsh claimed authority
himself and was recognised by Governor Claiborne as head of the church in
the territory.26 However, by 1805, the Catholic Church in New Orleans was
in a state of schism. On Sunday, March 5, 1805, Francisco Antonio Ildefonso Moreno y Arze de Sedella (commonly known as Père Antoine), the
pastor of St. Louis Cathedral, quit the altar after two of his vicars appeared
at the door of the sacristy and “rushed, without respect for the holy place, the
time, the ceremony . . . prevented the celebration of the holy mysteries.”27
22. Cited in Annabelle M. Melville, “John Carroll and Louisiana, 1803–1815,” Catholic
Historical Review 64 (1978), 398–440, here 400. On the importance of the acquisition of
Louisiana for the US and Jefferson, see Peter J. Kastor, The Nation’s Crucible: The Louisiana
Purchase and the Creation of America (New Haven, 2004).
23. Emily Clarke, Masterless Mistresses: The New Orleans Ursulines and the Development
of a New World Society, 1727–1834 (Chapel Hill, 2007), 222.
24. Clarke, Masterless Mistresses, 229–230; George Dargo, Jefferson’s Louisiana: Politics
and the Clash of Legal Traditions (Cambridge, MA, 1975), 11.
25. Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815
(New York, 2009), 372–373.
26. Baudier, Church in Louisiana, 251–253.
27. “An exhaustive account in French of Père Antoine. Compiled by Marquis de Casa
Calvo and made a part of the Official Record.” Antonio de Sedella Collection, 1778–1816,
Howard-Tilton Memorial Library, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana (hereafter TU).

J OE REGAN

97

Tension and quarrels had brewed between Sedella and the two vicars who
were supporters of Walsh. Sedella wrote a letter of resignation which
Walsh readily accepted and promptly proceeded to name himself pastor of
the cathedral.28 However, Père Antoine had second thoughts and withdrew his resignation. He explained to former Spanish governor of the
colony Calvo de la Puerta y O’Farrill, Marquis de Casa Calvo, that he
could not step aside when “Walsh, persists in making use of powers . . . he
orders that the ornaments, sacred cups, jewels, and other appurtenances be
delivered to him.”29 Walsh, proceeded to suspend Sedella as pastor of St.
Louis. Three of the city’s priests sided with Walsh and two sided with Père
Antoine, but most importantly, the laity supported their pastor.30 On
March 14, 1805, at a mass meeting held in the cathedral Sedella was
chosen as their pastor.31
Emily Clarke argues that this assertion of popular will by the
Catholics of New Orleans was a statement of “their readiness for American
citizenship,” that they “aligned themselves ideologically with the new
regime.”32 It is true that the Creoles of New Orleans did not find the ideals
of the American republic repugnant; however, it is better to view “the election” as a vanguard action for the preservation of Creole culture and its
dominance in society. The marguilliers asserted the canonical jus patronatus,
a right of patronage, in which the person who financially supported the
church nominated the priest. Under the jus patronatus it was the King’s
right to choose the nominee in Spanish America.33 By claiming the jus
patronatus for themselves, the marguilliers appealed to French and Spanish
Catholic tradition, not American republican values.
Walsh was perceived as overly keen to accept the American takeover,
as demonstrated by his friendly acquaintance with the unpopular Governor
Claiborne. For example, in 1804, Claiborne presented Walsh with “an elegant engraving of the transfiguration” as a token his “personal esteem” for
the Irish priest.34 Claiborne also recommended Walsh’s brother Michael as
28. Père Antoine de Sedella to Patrick Walsh, March 5, 1805 and Abbé Walsh to Rev.
Père Antonio, March 6, 1805, Antonio de Sedella Collection, 1778–1816, TU.
29. Fr. Antonio de Sedella to Marquis de Casa Calvo, March 12, 1805, Antonio de
Sedella Collection, 1778–1816, TU.
30. O’Neill, “Sundry Peculiarities,” 238.
31. Clarke, Masterless Mistresses, 230–231; Baudier, Church in Louisiana, 256–257.
32. Clarke, Masterless Mistresses, 230–232.
33. O’Neill, “A Bishop for Louisiana,” 105.
34. Governor Claiborne to Patrick Walsh, June 28, 1804, cited in Dundar Rowland,
ed., Official Letter Books of W.C. C. Claiborne 1801–1816, vol. 2 (Jackson, 1917), 232.

98

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

a “deserving officer” to Henry Dearborn US Secretary of War.35 Creole
Catholics had gone from being the majority to a distinct minority in the
vast United States. By March 16, 1805, Nicolas Maria Vidal, a colonial
judge and Spanish lieutenant of the colony informed Marquis de Casa
Calvo, of his dislike of Walsh. Walsh had provoked the ire of the Spaniard
for it was “he who prevents the procession of the Fête-Dieu [Corpus
Christi], a solemn cult of Christendom . . . for fear of scandalizing the different sects living among us. Such a false idea of charity, duty and even politics!” He believed that Walsh did not have “the most cherished prerogative” of Creole Catholics at heart since it was the duty of the clergy to be
“the staunchest defenders and most ardent advocate of our religious ceremonies.”36 Fearing loss of status and power, a siege mentality developed
among the Creole elite, and they entrenched themselves in order to maintain their prestige. Walsh was not the priest to champion their cause.
Walsh proclaimed the Ursuline Convent chapel as the only legitimate
parish church in the city and placed the whole cathedral under an ecclesiastical interdict: all sacraments performed there would be null and void. The
schism of 1805 demonstrates the complexity of the society and Church in
New Orleans. Here, a “Spanish friar was elected as pastor at New Orleans
by French Catholics, in defiance of an Irish priest who was trained within
the Spanish Empire yet now living in an overwhelming Protestant Republic.”37 Both sides made appeals to Rome, Baltimore, and Havana. Père
Antoine and the marguilliers of St. Louis Cathedral maintained that Walsh,
in his claims as Vicar-General, was in transgression of canon law. They
ignored Walsh’s actions as they firmly believed that he was without legitimate authority.38 A desperate Walsh appealed to Governor Claiborne to aid
him in removing the “Refractory Monk, supported in his Apostacy [sic] by
the fanaticism of a misguided populace.” While the schism was a “subject of
much regret,” for Claiborne, he had to “carefully avoid interference” in religious matters.39 Walsh received a severe blow to his claims when the Propaganda Fide informed him that he did not have any legitimate authority in
35. Governor Claiborne to Henry Dearborn, July 7, 1804 cited in Dundar Rowland,
ed., Official Letter Books of W.C. C. Claiborne 1801–1816, vol. 2 (Jackson, 1917), 240.
36. Cited in “An exhaustive account in French of Père Antoine. Compiled by Marquis
de Casa Calvo and made a part of the Official Record.” Antonio de Sedella Collection, TU.
37. Woods, Catholic Church, 175–177.
38. Castillon (President) and Caisserguer (Secretary) to Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore, March 6, 1807, in Antonio de Sedella Collection, 1778–1816, TU.
39. Fr. Patrick Walsh to Governor Claiborne, July 11, 1805 and Governor Claiborne
to Fr. Patrick Walsh, July 12, 1805, cited in Dundar Rowland, ed., Official Letter Books of
W.C. C. Claiborne 1801–1816, vol. 3 (Jackson, 1917), 121–123.

J OE REGAN

99

the diocese and that he was under the authority of Bishop Carroll in Baltimore.40 Walsh eventually passed away on August 22, 1806.41
The marguilliers of New Orleans attempted to enlist the Emperor of
the French, Napoleon Bonaparte, to intervene in the diocese’s affairs.42
Carroll was forced to intervene and on December 29, 1806, he officially
appointed Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Olivier Vicar-General of the Diocese
of Louisiana and the Two Floridas. Olivier informed Sedella that he would
lift all censures against him and the trustees if they recognised his authority
and allow him to be the pastor of the Cathedral. The trustees rejected
Olivier and wrote to Carroll asking him to remove Olivier and to confer
the title of Vicar-General on “Père Antoine de Sedella.” Sedella was their
choice, for “in a country such as this, it is the morals and conduct of its
ministers, rather than the dogma that sustains it, examples teach much
more here than catechism.” The blessing of Sedella by Bishop Carroll
would ensure the loyalty of New Orleans’s faithful who would submit
“with satisfaction and docility” to Baltimore’s authority. The trustees
believed that, since they were now a part of the United States, which
“authorizes us to accept or reject the nomination of the ministers necessary
to us.” They could challenge Carroll if he ignored their wishes; they would
address Rome “in order that our congregation be elevated directly to the
Apostolic See.”43 The trustees petitioned Rome, however, their appeal was
ignored and the New Orleans schism continued.
By 1810, seventy-year-old Olivier wished to be relieved of his duties.
Carroll sent Louis Sibourd to assist the ailing Olivier. Sibourd had previously been stationed in New York and, unlike Olivier, he could correspond in English. It was hoped that Sibourd’s experience would bring
Irish Catholics in the city to side with the Church hierarchy against the
trustees. Sibourd found that the Irish repeatedly promised to attend his
services, if preached in English, but they did not keep their promise. Only
one Irishman presented himself to Sibourd to make his Easter duty.
Sibourd, annoyed by the Irish community, believed that they did not
deserve attention from Baltimore.44 In New Orleans, Irish settlers found
40. O’Neill, “Sundry Peculiarities,” 246.
41. Woods, Catholic Church, 196.
42. Melville, “John Carroll and Louisiana,” 411.
43. Castillon (President) and Caisserguer (Secretary) to Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore, March 6, 1807, Antonio de Sedella Collection, 1778–1816, TU.
44. Sibourd to Carroll, June 12, 1811, cited in Melville, “John Carroll and Louisiana,”
422.

100

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

an already established Latin Catholic community that had a long history
of Catholic trustees.45
In the heat of 1805, Irish settlers did not challenge the marguilliers’
position. Many recognised the symbolic importance of St. Louis Cathedral. Located in the heart of the old city flanked by the Cabildo and Presbytère, the cathedral symbolised colonial Louisiana and its European
legacy. Denis Clark has observed that the early Irish immigrants in
Louisiana adapted readily “as the Irish had in France and Spain for generations before 1800.”46 After the Louisiana Purchase the small colonial
Irish population of New Orleans found themselves as a double minority.
On one hand, they were a religious minority amidst the Protestant majority in the United States, and, on the other hand, they were a linguistic
minority in their own church.47 As a merchant class, Irishmen had flourished in late colonial New Orleans and were wary of damaging their business and social ties with the city’s elite Creole families. The Irish community’s economic and social success was reflected in their ability to marry
into wealthy Creole families. For example, in 1812 Sedella blessed the
marriages of three of the city’s leading Irish businessmen: Maunsel White
to Celeste Laronde, James Hopkins to Maire Delphine Laznatt, and Benjamin Porter to Camille Prieur.48 Living in the shadow of the Creole
Church, the Irish laity played an insignificant role in the government of
the diocese until the 1830s.
On September 9, 1817, in Ardkeen, Co. Down, Hugh Quin bade
farewell “for the last time” to his family; “Anxiety, grief, resignation were
blended and obvious in their countenances, and as many more visible on
mine.”49 Sailing to New Orleans, the reality of leaving Ireland struck Quin
hard, “It is gone, alas! And I fear forever.”50 Many Irish immigrants like
Hugh relied on the solace of religion as a means of overcoming their sense
of isolation. On arrival in New Orleans, Hugh Quin was delighted to have
45. O’Neill, “Sundry Peculiarities,” 254–259.
46. Dennis Clark, “The South’s Irish Catholics: A Case of Cultural Confinement,” in
Catholics in the Old South, ed. Randall Miller and Jon Wakelyn (Macon, 1999), 205.
47. For more on the concept of the double minority, see Mark G. McGowan, “The Tales
and Trials of a ‘Double Minority’: The Irish and French Catholic Engagement for the Soul of
the Canadian Church, 1815–1947,” in Religion and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Irish Global
Networks 1750–1950, ed. Colin Barr and Hilary M. Carey (Montreal, 2015), 99–123.
48. Earl F. Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 1800–1860 (Baton Rouge, 1965), 11.
49. Journal of Hugh Quin, Sep., 9, 1817, Quin Papers, T2874/1, Public Record Office
of Northern Ireland (hereafter PRONI).
50. Journal of Hugh Quin, Oct., 26, 1817, Quin Papers, T2874/1, PRONI.

J OE REGAN

101

“the happiniss [sic] of hearing Mass. How happy is a Catholic in every
Country! The same Mass the same sacraments. I actually felt at home once
more.”51 Having heard “Mass which was the first thing I soughtafter [sic],”
Quin was left with the impression that “New Orleans cannot boast much
of piety.” He was disappointed to find that only a “few females” receive
communion and felt outraged by “young, impudent American clerks,” who
“strut up and down with their hats on during divine service their hands in
their pockets and gazing or staring every female.” They were “so wicked as
to nail the ladies gowns to the floor whilst they are on their knees praying
to their God.” After his first visit to St. Louis Cathedral, Quin “felt my
bosom swell with Indignation.”52
Despite poor first impressions Quin returned the following day with
the “desire of going to Confession.” In the cathedral, Quin found that the
priest “did not understand me & that there was no priest in that church”
who could speak English. Quin was an atypical immigrant, for he could
address the priest in Latin and have his confession heard promptly. Afterwards he saw “a Spanish Capuchin Friar named Antoine, the Incumbent
of this Cathedral” celebrate Mass. Quin noted that this “very old” priest
“whose long beard flowed down his breast” was highly respected among
the people of New Orleans. “Every tongue was loud in proclaiming his
charities, his unambitious views.” This claim to respect came from the fact
that “he had baptized and joined in marriage the most of the inhabitants
of N. Orleans.”53 For newly arrived Irish immigrants, unable to attend a
church where they were understood generated animosity. In a city where
Catholics were a majority, the growing Irish population believed that they
had a right to regular services in a Church where “God spoke English.”54
In 1815, the appointment of William Louis DuBourg as Bishop of
Louisiana failed to overturn the will of the marguilliers and their chosen
pastor. By 1817, DuBourg had found conditions in New Orleans so
unfavourable that he relocated his residence to St. Louis. The French-born
bishop believed his decision was justified for he “could not penetrate into
the capital of Louisiana, without exposing the sacred character with which
51. Journal of Hugh Quin, Dec., 4, 1817, Quin Papers, T2874/1, PRONI.
52. Ibid.
53. Journal of Hugh Quin, Dec., 5, 1817, Quin Papers, T2874/1, PRONI. See also J.
Edgar Bruns, “Annotating for Posterity: The Sacramental Records of Father Antonio de
Sedella,” in Cross, Crozier and Crucible: A Volume Celebrating the Bicentennial of a Catholic Diocese in Louisiana, ed. Glenn R. Conrad (Lafayette, 1993), 349–359.
54. Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 99.

102

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

I was invested.”55 In 1820, DuBourg returned to New Orleans, but never
overcame the marguilliers of St. Louis Cathedral. Bishop Benoît Joseph
Flaget of Bardstown believed DuBourg could not succeed in a city “where
the ungodliness of the people and their bad caprices” proved an “invincible
obstacle.”56 By 1826, DuBourg resigned his post and returned to France.57
That same year, the vast Diocese of Louisiana and the Two Floridas was
divided in two, creating the Diocese of New Orleans and the Diocese of
St. Louis.
The new Bishop of St. Louis, Joseph Rosati, had to oversee both dioceses after DuBourg’s departure. Rosati named Père Antoine as VicarGeneral of the Diocese of New Orleans. Sedella acknowledged Rosati’s
position but the marguilliers did not yield control of the Cathedral to
him.58 On January 22, 1829, Père Antoine de Sedella passed away aged
eighty-one. The city declared a day of mourning as they laid the Capuchin
priest to rest after one of the largest funerals the city had ever witnessed.
After his death, the United States bishops scrambled to get a permanent
replacement for DuBorg to fill the ecclesiastical power vacuum in New
Orleans. In due course, the Holy See appointed in 1830 a young Belgianborn Vincentian missionary, Leo Raymond de Neckere, who died of
yellow fever in 1833.59
Before his death, de Neckere dedicated the new St. Patrick’s Church
in April of 1833 and appointed Irish priest Adam Kindelon as its pastor.
St. Patrick’s was the first parish organised in the city separate from St.
Louis Cathedral, which until then was the only Catholic parish in the city.
Early in 1833, a group of Irish businessmen led by Charles Byrne and
Thomas Fitzwilliam had purchased four Camp Street lots. They secured an
act of incorporation for St. Patrick’s Church from the state legislature. This
charter granted full financial control of the Church to St. Patrick’s board
of trustees and permitted the establishment of a school, graveyard, and an
55. Cited in Richard Henry Clarke, Lives of the Deceased Bishops of the Catholic Church
in the United States, vol. 1, (New York, 1872), 224–225.
56. Bishop Flaget to Bishop Maréchal, Feb. 1823, cited in in Michael Pasquier, “When
Catholic Worlds Collide: French Missionaries and Ecclesiastical Politics in Louisiana, 1803–
1843,” in In God’s Empire: French Missionaries and the Modern World, ed. Owen White and J.
P. Daughton (New York, 2012), 37.
57. For more on DuBourg see Annabelle M. Melville, Louis William Dubourg: Bishop of
Louisiana and the Floridas, Bishop of Montauban, and Archbishop of Besançon, 1766–1833, 2
vols., (Chicago, 1986); Pasquier, “French Missionaries and Ecclesiastical Politics,” 33–39.
58. Woods, Catholic Church, 222–223.
59. Ibid., 227.

J OE REGAN

103

orphan asylum.60 St. Patrick’s location in Camp Street placed the Irish
Church in the American district of the city. This break from the Creole
dominated St. Louis demonstrated an assertive, growing Irish community
resolved to have the Church cater to their needs.
A Growing Antebellum Irish Community
In 1836, John Houston, one of many recent immigrants to New
Orleans, informed his mother in Larne, Co. Antrim, that “No person in
the old country can have any idea of the immense trade and business in this
city without seeing it.” John was certain that New Orleans “will be the
largest city in America or perhaps the world.”61 From 1834–1844, the city
was the most active port in the United States, and by 1850 it was second
only to New York as an entrepôt for foreign immigrants.62 Thomas Clark,
an Irish immigrant, leaving New Orleans for St. Louis, hoped to return for
“there is no place in all of the states so good for making money as New
Orleans.”63 By 1860, New Orleans was the largest exporting port in the
United States.64 Expanding economic opportunities attracted many newcomers, and New Orleans’s population increased exponentially during the
antebellum period, from 17,240 in 1810 to 168,675 by 1860. From a racial
point of view, Earl Niehaus argues that New Orleans became “a different
city” by the eve of the Civil War since its population was “almost 80 percent white, and a majority of these whites were foreign-born.”65 New
Orleans became a “labor depot” for Irish workers, and by 1860, over 86
percent of Louisiana’s Irish lived in the city accounting for 24,398 or 15.5
percent of the city’s total population.66 In 1854, Thomas K. Wharton noted
that “all Ireland seemed to be streaming” out of St. Theresa of Avila
Church on Camp Street after New Year’s Mass. He was astonished at
“how large an element” the Irish formed “in our resident population. . . . A
stranger from Dublin or Londonderry might fancy himself at home again
60. Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 99. See also pages 104–105 for the expansion of
other Irish parishes in the 1850s.
61. J. N. Houston to Mrs Houston, March 8, 1836, Linn / McKean Papers, T2581/7,
PRONI.
62. Gleeson, Irish in the South, 27–28.
63. Thomas Clark to Mother, April 7, 1819, D3127/3, PRONI.
64. Robert C. Reinders, End of an Era: New Orleans, 1850–1860 (New Orleans, 1989),
239. For more on the economy of New Orleans see Scott P. Marler, The Merchants’ Capital:
New Orleans and the Political Economy of the Nineteenth-Century South (Cambridge, 2013),
15–118.
65. Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 23.
66. Gleeson, Irish in the South, 33–36.

104

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

on our streets, especially about the time of ‘matins’ or ‘vespers.’”67 The
increasing numbers of immigrants, especially Irish and German Catholics,
changed the dynamic of the city and the Catholic Church. By 1860, “only
a bare majority” of the city’s population were Catholic, and “about half of
these were Irish.”68
Since the Louisiana Purchase, the Creole population had engaged in
a long “war of cultural and social exclusivism to preserve their Creole culture and to brace their slipping political numbers.”69 In 1819, Benjamin
Latrobe, noted the decline of Catholic celebrations since the end of Spanish rule. He found that Holy Week was “celebrated with much less pomp
than formerly, but still with many ceremonies that do not well accord with
the simplicity of American character. . . . Every year clips off a little more
of the old Spanish regime.”70 However, cultural and ethnic differences
between Creoles and non-Creoles did not always result in conflict or exclusion. By the mid-nineteenth century, the balls and festivals taking place
during the Mardi Gras season brought Creoles and Americans together to
celebrate . Carnival became “what Orleanians did and not what Creoles or
Catholics did, at least to the eyes of outsiders.”71
In 1826, Karl Postl, was unimpressed by Carnival celebrations. Attending a masked ball, he observed that some young merchants and the sons of
planters had assumed “the character of poor paddies, and they dressed
themselves accordingly.” Postl expected that the Creole women would display some wit but “the Creole Demoiselles,” had nothing to say, except
“Oh, I know that you are not an Irishman—You are the rich Y.”72 That
same year, Timothy Flint, from New England was struck by the “multitudes
of poor Irish Catholics” in New Orleans.73 The increase in numbers of Irish
67. Thomas K. Wharton, Queen of the South: New Orleans, 1853–1862, The Journal of
Thomas K. Wharton, ed. Samuel Wilson Jr., Patricia Brady, and Lynn D. Adams (New
Orleans, 1999), 60.
68. Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 110.
69. Randall M. Miller, “A Church in Cultural Captivity: Some Speculations on
Catholic Identity in the Old South,” in Catholics in the Old South, 2nd ed., ed. Randall Miller
and Jon Wakelyn (Macon, 1999), 34–37.
70. Cited in Frank De Caro, ed., Louisiana Sojourns: Travellers’ Tales and Literary Journeys (Baton Rouge, 1998), 528.
71. Samuel Kinser, Carnival, American Style: Mardi Gras at New Orleans and Mobile
(Chicago, 1990), 71.
72. Charles Sealsfield (Karl Postl), The Americans As They Are; Described in a Tour
through the Valley of the Mississippi (London, 1828), 185.
73. Timothy Flint, Recollections of the Last Ten Years, Passed in Occasional Residences and
Journeyings in the Valley of the Mississippi, from Pittsburgh and the Missouri to the Gulf of Mexico,

JOE REGAN

105

immigrants, especially after the onset of the Great Famine in the mid1840s, transformed the jovial caricature of the Irish Catholic into a figure
viewed as a threat to Creole Catholic society. Foreign Catholic immigrants
threatened to eclipse the Creoles’ position in the political sphere, as well as
the Church. Immigrants’ desires for their own separate ethnic churches
“broke Catholic unity, a chief source of Creole power in the city.”74
Irish Catholics became much more conspicuous with the arrival of
famine immigrants, most of whom stepped ashore in dire economic straits.
As a destination, New Orleans was attractive due to the “cheapness of the
passage across the ocean, and the great facility, at a very cheap rate, for persons and baggage, or reaching distant points,” such as St. Louis.75 However, numerous immigrants arrived without the means to continue up the
Mississippi. Many poor Irish clustered together in “miserable shanties”
that natives believed were a disgrace to the city.76 As in other large cities,
violence and drunkenness plagued the New Orleans Irish tenements, and
the stereotype of the reckless Irish buffoon became a feature among the
city’s periodicals.
In 1847, Derry native George Graham immigrated to America and
travelled widely for two years to gain profitable employment. He advised
his brother against emigration. Business was slow, and it was “rather a
troublesome time” due to “the cholera raging so bad. . . . There is not one
man out of every five that has arrived in New Orleans last winter but what
the cholera has proved fatal.” The threat of deadly diseases was just one of
the many trials an Irish immigrant had to endure:
You need not build upon that when you come to this country that you
shall have nothing to do but walk into a store and then your trouble is
over but let me tell you trouble is then just commencing. You are not
acquainted with the ways or customs of the people. Everything is as
strange to you as children when they go first to school. An Irishman is
not honoured very much here at first but temperance and regular habits
are the best means to get up your name.77

and from Florida to the Spanish Frontier: In a Series of Letters to the Rev. James Flint, of Salem,
Massachusetts (Boston, 1826), 308–311, 334.
74. Miller, “A Church in Cultural Captivity,” 34–37.
75. Vere Foster, Work and Wages: or the Penny Emigrant’s Guide to the United States and
Canada for Female Servants, Laborers, Mechanics, Farmers, &c. (London, 1852), 3.
76. “History and Incidents of the Plague in New Orleans,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 1853, pp. 797–806.
77. George Graham to David Graham, April 2, 1849, Papers of Graham and
McHenry families, Co. Londonderry, D3666/D/18, PRONI

106

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

Alice O’Regan, a young Irish immigrant attended “one of the first schools”
in New Orleans.78 At the school were two Irish teachers, “from Dublin Miss
Courany” and from Ballinasloe “Miss Kenny.” Alice informed her sister that:
the latter calls herself American the former English, it would never do in
a Creole school to say you were Irish, there is something in the very
sound of the word connected in their ideas with vulgarity, it often amuses
me to hear the way they speak about my country people, little they know
how near they have one of the despised race.79

The rapid growth of the New Orleans Catholic population provoked conflict between the Creole and immigrant communities. This conflict was
“already evident in the class system and in local politics.”80 Shocked by the
dire wretchedness of Irish immigrants, many in New Orleans remarked
how the “appalling want and flesh-eating famine have tended to change
their characters. The Irish of the present day . . . on our levees seem to be
a different race of Irish ten, 15, or 20 years since.”81
Irish Catholics had always been present in New Orleans, but they were
not as zealous as those who arrived after the successful Catholic Emancipation campaign of 1829 and the Tithe war of the 1830s.82 Irish immigrants found comfort and refuge in their religion. For example, in 1842,
Michael O’Regan, as he prepared to embark for New Orleans, consoled his
mother, “Religion is now your only consolation—it is what keeps my mind
at ease.”83 In the nineteenth-century, Catholicism in Ireland underwent a
dramatic transformation with the “Devotional Revolution.” Between 1823
and 1845, a new popular pride in Catholicism began to emerge in Ireland
alongside the success of Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic Association and
Father Mathew’s temperance crusade. The people’s support gave Irish
Catholicism its “peculiar character as a deeply emotional, non-intellectual
and democratic force.”84 The Irish Church fell in line with developments of

78. Terence O’Regan to Ellen O’Regan, March 8, 1853, O’Regan Family Papers MSS
590, Williams Research Center, The Historic New Orleans Collection (hereafter HNOC).
79. Alice O’Regan to Ellen O’Regan, June 10, 1853, O’Regan Family Papers, HNOC.
80. Reinders, End of an Era, 114.
81. Daily Orleanian, October 20, 1850.
82. Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh, Ireland Before The Famine, 1798–1848, 3rd ed. (Dublin,
2007), 35–70.
83. Michael O’Regan to Dearest and Fondest Mother, June 19, 1842, O’Regan Family
Papers, HNOC.
84. George D. Boyce, Nineteenth Century Ireland: The Search for Stability (Dublin,
2005), 15; Emmet Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution in Ireland 1850–75,” The American
Historical Review 77 (1972), 625–652; Emmet Larkin, “The Beginnings of the Devotional

JOE REGAN

107

the Church throughout post Napoleonic Europe, which had witnessed the
emergence of a more assertive conservative Ultramontanism, and a traditional model of Catholicism focusing on sin and submissiveness to the
Church hierarchy.85 The catastrophic disaster of the Great Famine drove
more Irish people towards the Church.86
Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Armagh and later Archbishop of Dublin,
was central to the reorganisation of the Church in Ireland. The Church
transformed during Cullen’s tenure (1849-1878) from the “old system of
the days of Persecution, the catacombs, and the caves” to a model of
Roman efficiency.87 The Church in Ireland was homogenised, resulting in
the widespread decline of old religious and folk customs.88 A distinct form
of Catholicism emerged from Ireland by the 1850s, and it differed from
that practiced in Louisiana. Many Irish immigrants sought refuge and
comfort in both prayer and religion. The Catholic Church helped Irish
Catholic immigrants maintain a core component of their self-identity. The
observations and celebrations of Catholicism formed a vital element of
immigrants’ social lives. The celebration of mass was a communal activity
that transcended socio-economic class lines and reinforced ethnic awareness.89 The dramatic increase of Catholic immigration from the 1840s
onward transformed the United States Church into an immigrant institution in line with the Romanization of the Church. In New Orleans, the
established Catholic population was not receptive to these developments.
Many Creole Catholics believed that it was “incontestable that the
Catholic religious beliefs ease the moments of pain and sorrow” and
Revolution in Ireland: The Parish Mission Movement, 1825–1846,” New Hibernia Review 18
(2014), 74–92; Tom Inglis, Moral Monopoly: The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in Modern
Ireland, 2nd ed. (Dublin, 1998), 104.
85. Dolan, In Search of an American Catholicism, 36–38 and 43–55.
86. Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution,” 638–645.
87. Gleeson, Irish in the South, 84–85; Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution,” 638–645.
For more on Cullen see Dáire Keogh and Albert McDonnell, eds., Cardinal Paul Cullen and
his World (Dublin, 2011).
88. R. V. Comerford, “Ireland 1850–70: Post-famine and mid Victorian Ireland,” in A
New History of Ireland, Vol. V: Ireland under the Union, 1801–70, 2nd ed., ed. W.E. Vaughan
(New York, 2010), 386–387.
89. Edward M. Shoemaker, “Strangers to Citizens: The Irish Immigrant Community
in Savannah, 1837–1861” (PhD diss., Emory University, 1990), 206. For more on the importance of Catholicism for Irish immigrants see Kevin Kenny, The American Irish: A History
(New York, 2000), 71–120; Kerby A. Miller, Ireland and Irish America: Culture, Class, and
Transnational Migration (Dublin, 2008); Jay P. Dolan, The Irish Americans: A History (New
York, 2008), 107–134.

108

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

adhered to strict religious beliefs.90 Influenced by the ideas of Gallicanism
and Voltairianism during the colonial period, Creole Catholicism stressed
independence and scepticism of the hierarchy.91 The more liberal Catholic
tradition of New Orleans shocked many, particularly Creoles’ seeming lack
of respect for Sunday observations. Maine-born Joseph Holt Ingraham discovered that “the Sabbath was made for man—not man for the Sabbath” in
New Orleans, and that “religion was bestowed upon man, not to lessen, but
to augment his happiness.”92 In the antebellum South, some people were
devout Christians, others were indifferent, while many found themselves
somewhere in between.93 In New Orleans, John Houston discovered the
“Churches are open but so are the Circuses, the Theatres, the Cockpits[,]
the Gaming House[,] and the markets are larger” with “more bought and
sold . . . on Sunday than any other day of week.”94 Irish Catholic immigrants from the 1850s onwards were likely to adhere to a parish-oriented
faith, which encouraged spiritual activism. It emphasized a hierarchical
model of the Church strongly focused on “emotion-laden themes as sin and
fear.”95 Many Irish Catholics were left with the impression that the Creole
population displayed little attachment to their religion. Alice O’Regan
informed her sister that the Creoles “are all Catholics but such Catholics,
they go to balls theatres operas, everywhere on Sundays.”96
Ethnic divisiveness in the city was apparent among the clergy, and
class difference influenced their perceptions. French priests reared and
trained in the tradition of French absolutism had little sympathy for the
Irish at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.97 Many French clergymen resented the Irish and their poverty, and Irish priests were often
unwelcome in areas without a strong Irish congregation.98 A distinct cru90. Marius St. Colomb Bringier to Mrs. M. D. Bringier, May 19, 1849, cited in Craig
A. Bauer, Creole Genesis: The Bringier Family and Antebellum Plantation Life in Louisiana
(Lafayette, 2011), 35.
91. Michael Doorley, “Irish Catholics and French Creoles: Ethnic Struggles within the
Catholic Church in New Orleans 1835–1920,” Catholic Historical Review 87 (2001), 34–53,
here 38.
92. Joseph Holt Ingraham, The South-West by a Yankee, vol. 1 (New York, 1835), 219–20.
93. Edward R. Crowther, “Holy Honor: Sacred and Secular in the Old South,” Journal
of Southern History 58 (1992), 619–636, here 624.
94. J. N. Houston to Mrs Houston, March 8, 1836, Linn/McKean Papers, PRONI.
95. Dolan, In Search of an American Catholicism, 45.
96. Alice O’Regan to Ellen O’Regan, June 10, 1853, O’Regan Family Papers, HNOC.
97. Gleeson, Irish in the South, 76.
98. Rev. J. B. Babonneau to Bishop Blanc, Nov. 25, 1852, and Rev. C. Chambost to
Bishop Blanc, Nov. 25, 1855, Blanc (Most Rev) Antoine: Translations of Administrative
Records, 1851–1860, Archives of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, hereafter AANO.

J OE REGAN

109

cible of Irish–French interaction and confrontation was the Diocesan
Seminary of St. Vincent de Paul, established in 1838, in Plattenville,
Louisiana.99 Here, Irish students regularly clashed with their French superiors. For example, Bishop Blanc received reports from its superior, Rev.
Masnou, informing him that a “young Irishman who recently came to the
seminary does not have the vocation for the Ecclesiastical state.” The young
Irishman acted strangely and “worse” was “not docile.”100 In 1852, Masnou
voiced his opposition to the seminary enrolling more Irish students, admitting that “it is very difficult to sympathize with them. I have no complaint
about those whom we have, but as for my part I should want to have nothing to do with them.”101 The increase in the number of Irish Catholics and
Irish priests worried both French and native-born Catholics. They feared
an Irish takeover of the Church, which they believed would destroy the
institution by introducing “nationalist tribalism into it.”102 In 1860, discussing the passing of Archbishop Blanc, Rev. Chalon, in Belle Fontaine,
Alabama, advised his friend and Vicar-General of New Orleans Rev.
Roussellon that, “If they give us an Irish Archbishop, let us flee, my dear
one, let us flee, let us abandon all to his policies.”103
Irish priests often acted as leaders and representatives for poor immigrants; they were also social workers, educators, and health care providers.
In poor urban areas, priests acted as figureheads for newly arrived immigrants. Patrick Cantwell feared the temptations available to his son John in
New Orleans and continually reminded him of the necessity to adhere to
the Catholic faith. “Be not a Moment Idle- that is the time of peril. avoid
the company of the impure, the drunkard, the liar, the profane, the impious, the dissipated, they cannot be honourable or honest.” Patrick stressed
that John acquaint himself with “the RC Clergy of your city” for “those are
the friends that never . . . desert the unfortunate.”104 In New Orleans,
Bishop Blanc received complaints about the actions of the pastor of St.
Patrick’s Church, James Ignatius Mullon, who alienated “part of his
99. Mark S. Raphael, History of Notre Dame Seminary (New Orleans, 1997), 22–24.
100. G. Masnou P.C.M to Bishop Blanc, Undated, Blanc (Most Rev) Antoine: Translations of Administrative Records, 1851–1860, AANO.
101. G. Masnou P.C.M to Bishop Blanc, Jan. 15, 1851, Blanc (Most Rev) Antoine:
Translations of Administrative Records, 1851–1860, AANO.
102. Miller, Church in Cultural Captivity, 28.
103. Rev. G. Chalon to Rev Roussellon, July 9, 1860, Rousselon Papers Translations,
AANO.
104. Patrick Cantwell to John P. Cantwell, Sep. 11, 1848, Folder 1, John Lucas Paul
Cantwell Papers, 1830–1909, Southern Historical Collection, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

110

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

people” and prejudiced “the minds of protestants.” As a staunch Irish
nationalist, many resented Mullon for “standing forward as the champion
of national predilection & antipathies & by his active co-operation & the
unnecessary frank avowal of his opinions in all places.”105 Irish Catholics
wanted more than “a Gladiatorial frothy display of high flowing language”
and preferred attentive Irish or Irish-American priests.106
Irish immigrant Arthur Brown found New Orleans a “horrible place”
where the people “laugh at religion.”107 Religious indifference was not
uncommon among Creole males, who believed religion was the responsibility of women and children.108 Many of the Creole elite were active in
secret societies such as the Masons and Odd Fellows. One criticism made
against Sedella was that he permitted the bodies of Masons “to be brought
into the Church with Masonic insignia and paraphernalia on the coffin.”109
The Creoles’ participation in the Masonic order posed challenges for the
clergy throughout the antebellum period. For example, in Pattersonville,
Louisiana the parish trustees denied Rev. Guérad “the pew rent.” The
leader of “so-called Trustees (progenies viperarum [offspring of vipers])”
was also “a Freemason.”110 Later in Franklin, a shocked Guérad found that
most Catholics in the town were “Odd Fellows or Freemasons.” Uncertain
of diocesan prescriptions, Guérad inquired if he should withhold absolution. He feared a confrontation and asked, “may not one overlook it...I am
very much inclined towards a gentle approach.”111 The Creole population
was not afraid to challenge the Church hierarchy. Creole newspapers often
attacked the hierarchy for being reactionary, and they distrusted the Irish,
who, as the Semi-Creole Weekly declared on February 21, 1855, were
“bound with the iron shackles of an odious spiritual tyranny.”112

105. O.A. to Bishop Blanc, 1852, Bishop Blanc Papers University of Notre Dame Collection, AANO.
106. Catholics of St. Patrick’s to Right Rev. Antoine Blanc, August 17, 1843, Bishop
Blanc Papers, AANO.
107. Alicia Brown to Dr. Hamilton, Feb. 2, 1835, Hamilton Papers 3, Dublin Diocesan Archive, Ireland.
108. Emily Clark and Virginia Mecham Gould, “The Feminine Face of Afro-Catholicism in New Orleans, 1727–1852,” William and Mary Quarterly 59 (2002), 409–448.
109. Baudier, Catholic Church in Louisiana, 275–276.
110. Fr. P. Guérad to Monseigneur Rousselon, March 7, 1851, Blanc (Most Rev.)
Antoine: Translations of Blanc’s Administrative Records 1851–1860, AANO.
111. Fr. P. Guérad to Monseigneur Rousselon. Dec. 28, 1851. Blanc (Most Rev.)
Antoine: Translations of Blanc’s Administrative Records 1851–1860, AANO. For more on
Creole Masonry see Reinders, End of an Era, 115–116.
112. Cited in Doorley, “Irish Catholics and French Creoles,” 38.

J OE REGAN

111

It is important to state that many of those who immigrated during and
immediately after the famine were not devout Catholics.113 Many Irish
nationalists were bitter towards the Irish Catholic hierarchy for their role
in undermining the Young Irelanders revolt in 1848. John Maginnis, in
New Orleans, for example, had nothing but “my wholesale denunciations”
for “the clerical stipendiaries [sic] of the British crown, who lent their influence to crush the rising spirit of freedom in Ireland.”114 The Daily Orleanian, among other papers, stressed that Irish Catholics were not mere “vassals to priestly authority.”115 Upon completing repayments on the original
mortgage for St. Patrick’s Church, its board of trustees adopted an ambitious plan to remodel and expand the Church. A series of misfortunate
architectural and financial mishaps followed. In 1845, the dire financial situation forced the trustees to sell St. Patrick’s at a sheriff’s auction to the
fifth Bishop of New Orleans, Antoine Blanc.116 French-born Blanc, VicarGeneral of the diocese since 1831, proved to be one of the most influential
clergymen in nineteenth-century Louisiana. His quarter century episcopacy saw the Church undergo sustained growth. By the time of his death
in 1860, New Orleans had twenty-three Catholic churches and chapels.117
He acquired complete control of the affairs of St. Patrick’s Church and
formed a fruitful alliance with the city’s Irish community.
In 1842, the death of Abbé Louis Moni, the accepted pastor of the
cathedral by the marguilliers since 1829, brought the latter into open conflict with the bishop. Blanc appointed Etienne Rousselon as the new pastor
of the cathedral, but the marguilliers declared the bishop’s appointment
invalid. In retaliation Blanc issued a pastoral letter condemning their
actions as schismatical.118 The marguilliers responded by publishing in the
113. Miller, Ireland and Irish America, 83; Larkin, “The Devotional Revolution,” 625–
652; Michael P. Carroll, American Catholics in the Protestant Imagination: Rethinking the Academic Study of Religion (Baltimore, 2007), 27–61.
114. John Maginnis Letter, July 18, 1849, McKowen (John) Papers, MSS 1353,
Louisiana and Lower Mississippi Valley Collections, Louisiana State University Libraries,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
115. The Daily Orleanian, April 8, 1852, cited in Niehaus, The Irish in New Orleans, 108.
116. Ibid., 100–101; Samuel Wilson, Jr., “Church Architecture in the Mid-Nineteenth
Century: St. Patrick’s Church,” in Cross, Crozier and Crucible: A Volume Celebrating the Bicentennial of a Catholic Diocese in Louisiana, ed. Glenn R. Conrad (Lafayette, 1993), 505–524,
here 514.
117. J. Edgar Bruns, “Antoine Blanc: Louisiana’s Joshua in the Land of Promise,” in
Cross, Crozier and Crucible: A Volume Celebrating the Bicentennial of a Catholic Diocese in
Louisiana, ed. Glenn R. Conrad (Lafayette, 1993), 133.
118. Ibid.; Antoine Blanc, Pastoral Letter of the Right Reverend Doctor Blanc, Relative to
the Attempts Made to Establish a Schism in St. Louis (New Orleans, 1842). See also Brother

112

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

Courier de la Louisiane and the L’Abeille de la Nouvelle-Orléans that they, as
United States citizens, were sovereign and had inherited the right of jus
patronatus which the King of Spain had previously held and had been
transferred to the elected trustees of the cathedral.119 The situation deteriorated when the Council of the First Municipality of the City on October
31, 1842, passed an ordinance which made it “unlawful to carry and expose
in any of the Catholic Churches of this municipality any corpse, under the
penalty of a fine of fifty dollars,” and was lawful only for priests to perform
funeral rites in “the obituary chapel, situated in Rampart Street,” which
was an adjunct of the cathedral, under the control of the trustees.120 The
Creole elite dominated both the board of trustees and city council. The
“Dead Corpse Ordinance,” enacted under the guise of hygienic reasons,
placed all funeral services in the hands of the marguilliers. In response,
Blanc removed all clergy from the Cathedral, allowing only one priest, Rev.
Lesne, to remain at the chapel to bless bodies but not to perform the traditional obsequies. In December, the ordinance was overruled, but no
clergy returned to the cathedral.121
The Mississippi Free Trader and Natchez Gazette informed its readers
that the “Wardens and the Bishop” still “continue a paper warfare relative
to the right of administering” the cathedral: “A proposition, we observe, is
made by the wardens to refer it to the courts of the country for final adjudication.”122 The marguilliers sued the bishop for $20,000 in damages for
dereliction of duty and libel and slander and appeared before the Louisiana
State Supreme Court.123 Rousselon informed the Society of the Propagation of the Faith that the actions taken by the marguilliers was a conspiracy
between the trustees and Freemasons to “wage a war of teasing and calculated oppression . . . threats of daggers, arson, demolition of churches
belonging to the Bishop are made to us every day.” And “to cap it all” two
of the city’s priests sympathised with the marguilliers to form a “coterie
Alfonso Comeau, C.S.C., “A Study of the Trustee Problem in the St. Louis Cathedral
Church of New Orleans, Louisiana, 1842–1844,” Louisiana Historical Quarterly 31 (1948),
897–972.
119. Bruns, Louisiana’s Joshua, 128–129; Schisme de L’Eglise St. Louis, N’lle-Orleans. Pièces
et Documents Officiels Publiés dans la contestation qui a eu lieu en M. M. Les Marguilliers, et Mgr.
L’Eveque ant. Blanc au sujet de la nomination de M. Rousselon Curé (Nouvelle-Orleans, 1842).
120. Permoli v. Municipality No.1 of the City of New Orleans, 44, U.S. 589 (1845),
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/44/589/case.html.
121. Bruns, Louisiana’s Joshua, 130.
122. Mississippi Free Trader and Natchez Daily Gazette, Nov. 18, 1843.
123. Michael McConnell, “Permoli v First Municipality of New Orleans,” in Religion
and American Law: An Encyclopaedia, ed. Paul Finkelman (New York, 2000), 360.

JOE REGAN

113

inimical to Religion.”124 The actions of the marguilliers began to alienate
them from their supporters, and outraged the supporters of the bishop.
Blanc believed it “evident for all of us that this is a fight to the death of infidelity against Religion.”125
On November 10, 1843, Blanc received an address “in the name of the
St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society, American Irish Catholics numbering fifteen hundred and sixty.” They pledged their support and cooperation
“as obedient members of the church to sustain you in the exercise of your
rightful episcopal jurisdiction in your Diocese.” The Irish supporters had
little regard for those who “hold the doctrines of the church in contempt”
and were certain that if the marguilliers “had the faith of Irishmen, they
would not act as they do.”126 Formed in 1842, the St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society, according to the Daily Picayune “appeared to be exclusively
composed of the honest, labouring class.”127 The predominant unit of political organization in nineteenth-century Ireland was the parish; the establishment of Irish Catholic temperance in New Orleans fits the outline of
the Irish devotional revolution and allowed the immigrant community to
exercise a degree of control and autonomy in the Church. Irish Catholics
who joined New Orleans’s St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society
employed the trappings of middle class respectability to create an Irish
Catholic association and identity separate from Creole Catholics.128 Blanc
appreciated the support of the Irish. He recognised the importance of Irish
Catholics for the future of the Church in New Orleans. Six days after
receiving the staunch support of St. Patrick’s Total Abstinence Society,
Bishop Blanc wrote to Rome considering the possibility of elevating St.
Patrick’s Church to the status of diocesan cathedral.129
Blanc and the Irish community shared a vision “of Church expansion
into the social and educational concerns of its parishioners.” For the
124. Cited in Pasquier, “French Missionaries and Ecclesiastical Politics,” 41.
125. Ibid.
126. John Pryer, John C. Lawlor, N. Fitzsimmons, Salvester Quinn, D. J. O’Callaghan
& J. P. Kerwin to Bishop Blanc, Nov., 10, 1843, Bishop Blanc Papers, AANO.
127. The Daily Picayune, March 18, 1842.
128. For more on Irish Temperance see Paul Townend, “Mathewite Temperance in
Atlantic Perspective,” in The Irish in the Atlantic World, ed. David T. Gleeson (Columbia,
2010), 19–37; Mike McLaughlin, “Catholicism, Masculinity, and Middle-Class Respectability in the Irish Catholic Temperance Movement in Nineteenth-Century Canada,” in Religion
and Greater Ireland: Christianity and Irish Global Networks 1750–1950, ed. Colin Barr and
Hilary M. Carey (Montreal, 2015), 163–186.
129. Bruns, Louisiana’s Joshua, 132.

114

IRISH CATHOLICS AND THE MARGUILLIER CONTROVERSIES

poor, working class Irish families, eking out a hard existence, the aid and
charity provided by the Catholic Church was indispensable. The Creole
population neither “expected nor demanded such services from the
Church and resented that the Irish did so.”130 In January 1844, Bishop
Blanc informed Archbishop Eccelston of Baltimore that the Irish community had “always sustained us and will be always in [sic] the side of
authority.” Blanc also informed the Propaganda Fide later that year of
the significance of the Irish to his episcopate. “It is highly important to
the interest of religion in New Orleans to uphold especially the influence
of the Catholic portion which speaks English [i.e. the Irish]. That portion will always sustain the Bishop.”131 Late in 1844, the Louisiana
Supreme Court judged in favour of Blanc, declaring that the bishop had
“exclusive authority to regulate the public affairs and clergy of the church
parishes in his jurisdiction.”132 In its ruling the Court declared that the
right of “jus petronates of Spanish law, is abrogated in this state.”133 The
court’s ruling proved a significant victory for Blanc as it broke the resolve
of the many of the marguilliers.
In 1844, Blanc also erected the new parishes of St. Joseph’s and the
Annunciation. This further diminished the congregation of St. Louis and its
marguilliers. However, in 1847, Rousselon lamented that the “trustees of the
cathedral continue to be the great wound to the diocese.” He hoped that
“public opinion will little by little help to destroy this ridiculous privilege.”
The trustees remained “men entirely hostile to religion,” but “two must leave
each year” and Rousselon hoped for an elected body of marguilliers supportive of the bishop.134 For the remainder of the antebellum period the trustees
of St. Louis did not openly trouble the bishop. Blanc denied the practice of
a lay trustee system in the newly constructed churches of the 1850’s. On July
19, 1850, Pope Pius IX elevated the Diocese of New Orleans to the status

130. Laura D. Kelley, Erin’s Enterprise: Immigration by Appropriation: The Irish in Antebellum New Orleans (PhD diss., Tulane University, 2004), 228–229.
131. Cited in John Gilmary Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States from
the Fifth Provincial Council of Baltimore, 1843, to the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1860
(New York, 1892), 268, 270.
132. Carl A. Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun: Transformation of a People (Jackson, 1992),
36; McConnell, Permoli v First Municipality, 360; Francis P. Burns, “Notes on the Legislation and Litigation Affecting the Title of Saint Louis Cathedral,” Louisiana Historical Quarterly, 18 (1935), 363–376.
133. Merritt M. Robinson, Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in The Supreme Court
Louisiana, vol. 8 (New Orleans, 1844), 52.
134. Etienne Rousselon to Propagation of the Faith, July 5, 1857, Propagation of the
Faith Collection New Orleans, #2821, AANO.

JOE REGAN

115

of an Archdiocese.135 On February 16, 1851, in one of “the most imposing
and interesting ceremonies ever witnessed” in St. Patrick’s Church, Antoine
Blanc became the first Archbishop of New Orleans. Although St. Louis was
undergoing repairs, the selection of the St. Patrick’s was symbolically
important to the Irish community.136
Conclusion
In the United States, Irish Catholic immigrants adapted to the social,
political, and regional norms of their American neighbors. Irish immigrants
were the first and largest Catholic ethnic group in the eastern cities, such as
Boston, New York, and Philadelphia where the Irish clergy and laity assumed
local control. New Orleans’s French and Spanish legacy resulted in an Irish
Catholic experience “atypical” from other American cities.137 The Irish in
New Orleans, arrived in a city where the Creole community controlled
Catholicism, and the Irish did not establish Hiberno-supremacy within the
local Church. The trustee controversies in New Orleans reveal how the Irish
community struggled to secure their place within the city’s society. It demonstrates the evolution of the Irish Catholics’ attitude towards Church authority.
Irish influence grew in New Orleans throughout the antebellum period. The
city had one Irish priest in 1835, but by 1855, nine Irish priests were ministering in the city.138 Despite their substantial number, Irish immigrants never
displaced the power and influence of the French and Creole leaders. The
bitter division between Creole and Irish Catholics remained pronounced
throughout the 1850s, especially, after some leading Creole families openly
supported the city’s Know-Nothing American Party. The American Party
throughout the United States was anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. However, in New Orleans the party stood against new immigrant Catholics, not
the established Creole community.139 New Orleans’s Creole Catholics held
fast to their Francophone language and heritage. Irish Catholics faced some
of their sternest opponents in their Creole co-religionists, who held conflicting beliefs about the governance and role of the Church in New Orleans.
135. Woods, Catholic Church, 263–264.
136. The Daily Crescent, Feb. 17, 1851.
137. Earl F. Niehaus, “Catholic Ethnics in Nineteenth-Century Louisiana,” in Cross,
Crozier and Crucible: A Volume Celebrating the Bicentennial of a Catholic Diocese in Louisiana,
ed. Glenn R. Conrad (Lafayette, 1993), 48–69, here 60.
138. Gleeson, Irish in the South, 82.
139. Marius M. Carriere Jr., “Anti-Catholicism, Nativism, and Louisiana Politics in
the 1850s,” The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association 25 (1994), 459–466; John Sacher,
A Perfect War of Politics: Parties, Politicians, and Democracy in Louisiana, 1824–1861 (Baton
Rouge, 2003), 221–258; Gleeson, Irish in the South, 107–120.

Restoring the Chilean Race:
Catholicism and Latin Eugenics in Chile
SARAH WALSH*
Using early twentieth century Chile as a case study, this article examines the interaction between Catholicism and eugenic social reform in
Latin America. Examining articles that appeared in popular and
Catholic periodicals between 1891 and 1940, it argues that both
Catholic and secular eugenicists advocated for the modernization of
patriarchal social structures to protect the racial health of the Chilean
population. The article therefore illustrates how Latin American
eugenics, though less concerned with biological heritage than its North
American counterparts, still supported the notion that organizing societies around gender difference was scientifically sound.
Keywords: Latin America, eugenics, Rerum Novarum, marriage crisis
n the introduction to Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective (2014),
authors Marius Turda and Aaron Gillette argue that, “The relationship
between eugenics and religion is of crucial importance when examining
Latin eugenics.”1 For them, one of the defining features of a eugenic movement that might be considered “Latin” is its ability to conceptually fit with
the long-standing cultural influence of Catholicism in places such as
southern Europe and Latin America.2 Indeed, they contend that Catholicism’s cultural influence served as both a means of identifying a biological,
racialized Latin population and a corresponding, Latin intellectual and sci-

I

*Dr. Sarah Walsh is currently a Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow at Washington State
University. Email: sarah.walsh@wsu.edu. She would like to thank Warwick Anderson, Karin
Alejandra Rosemblatt, and Patience A. Schell for giving feedback on earlier versions of this
article. She would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments as well as
that of editor Nelson Minnich. The research for this article was supported by the National
Science Foundation and the Australian Research Council Laureate Project “Race and Ethnicity in the Global South.”
1. Marius Turda and Aaron Gillette, Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective
(Sydney, 2014), 11.
2. Turda and Gillette define the Latin world as follows, “a synthesis of ancient Roman
civilization, linguistic and cultural commonality, and Roman Catholicism . . . [or] Christian
Orthodoxy,” 1. This article uses this same metric to determine Chile’s belonging to the Latin
intellectual tradition.

116

SARAH WALSH

117

entific network in the early twentieth century. Demonstrating their commitment to understanding the interaction between Catholicism and Latin
eugenics, a chapter in Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective outlines
the work of a number of Catholic eugenicists in southern Europe. Notably,
the chapter discusses one of the major issues to which Catholics objected
in the eugenic canon: coerced sterilization.
However, Turda and Gillette’s call to examine the interactions
between Catholicism and eugenics should be extended beyond debates
regarding coerced sterilization. As they rightly point out, eugenics in the
Latin world was characterized by a wide variety of institutional interventions into individuals’ lives in the name of racial improvement including
but not limited to: maternal and infant health, preventive medicine, and
public health campaigns.3 This article then examines Catholic texts written
in Chile between 1891 and 1940 to illustrate one way in which Catholic
intellectuals were able to engage with the development and institutionalization of the eugenics movement there. In particular, it will demonstrate
how both Catholic and secular eugenicists saw the modernization of patriarchal gender roles as essential to restoring Chilean racial health.4
To foreground Catholic interest in eugenics, this article will discuss a
wide variety of texts published between 1891 and 1940 highlighting those
written by Catholic intellectuals that have often been overlooked in the
history of eugenics. It will begin with a brief historiographical overview
regarding eugenics and Catholicism in Latin America during the first half
of the twentieth century. Next, it will discuss the 1891 papal encyclical
Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor as a foundational document for
how Catholics in Chile conceptualized their place in the national eugenic
movement. This was no easy feat. As the following sections demonstrate,
Catholics interested in eugenic social reform had to respond to quite
intense secular critiques. The final section of the article regarding the supposed marriage crisis in the interwar period, and the shared interest
Catholic and secular eugenicists had in this issue, serves as a case study for
how a commitment to patriarchal social structures created common intel3. Turda and Gillette, Latin Eugenics, 3.
4. This approach builds on the work of Mary Kay Vaughan regarding the modernization of patriarchy. However, unlike Vaughan, this article focuses on the role of how the
human sciences contributed to this modernization. See Mary Kay Vaughan, “Modernizing
Patriarchy: State Policies, Rural Households, and Women in Mexico, 1930–1940,” in Hidden
Histories of Gender and the State in Latin America, ed. Elizabeth Dore and Maxine Molyneux
(Durham, NC, 2000), 194–214.

118

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

lectual ground. Ultimately, this article highlights how Catholic thinkers in
Latin America were able to maintain their relevance in an increasingly secular society by engaging with contemporary scientific debates. It also
demonstrates that modern, secular societies in this period were similarly
committed to patriarchy as an essential component of social order as societies organized around religious principles.
Contextualizing Catholicism and Latin Eugenics
Despite Turda and Gillette’s recent work, most scholarly efforts to
consider what, if any, effect Catholicism had on eugenics and vice versa
have been limited to a conflict narrative. Sharon Leon, historian of American Catholic responses to eugenics, argues quite convincingly that
Catholics in the United States were notably hostile to the science and corresponding social movement from the start.5 In fact, she argues that,
“Rather than pushing social reform based on hereditary principles,
Catholic thinkers argued that Catholic doctrine provided a reliable guide
for social reform. Focusing on principles of free will and the influence of
the environment in bringing about social change, Catholics suggested that
a sound moral code could do more to improve the American population
than any process of selective breeding.”6 And yet, Leon’s acknowledgement
of choice and environment playing a role in a community’s racial improvement demonstrates the conceptual pervasiveness of eugenic thought in the
early twentieth century. As the Chilean writers discussed below will show,
preference for environmental intervention did not preclude the acceptance
of biological factors as decisive in creating and maintaining social order.
Better understanding Catholic involvement in the Latin American eugenic
movement also helps to explain the fact that “negative” eugenic practices,
such as abortion, euthanasia, and coerced sterilization, were not popular
even among secular eugenicists there.
Nancy Leys Stepan’s “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation
in Latin America (1991), still the most well known historical study of
eugenics in Latin America, was one of the first to point out this trend
among Latin eugenicists. She compellingly showed how eugenicists in
Latin America created their own scientific discipline that was skeptical of
the utility of strict hereditarianism. Nonetheless, she insisted that scholars
should consider Latin American environmentally based racial hygiene pro-

5. Sharon M. Leon, An Image of God: The Catholic Struggle with Eugenics (Chicago, 2013).
6. Leon, Image of God, 27.

SARAH W ALSH

119

grams as eugenics, though the literature at that time heavily focused on the
history of hereditarian negative eugenics in North America and northern
Europe.7 In the decades since, a number of Latin Americanists have examined eugenics at the national level.8 However, despite both Stepan and
Turda and Gillette’s call for better attention to the influence of religion in
the development of the eugenic movement in the region, histories of
eugenics in Latin America have yet to probe the complex relationship
between the eugenic movement and Catholicism. Building on the significant literature regarding eugenics in Latin America, which largely reflected
on how scientists used race and gender to construct ‘natural’ boundaries
between national populations, this article considers how eugenic science in
Latin America presented an incredibly attractive and malleable vocabulary
to discuss issues perceived as arising from social modernization in the first
half of the twentieth century. Using Chile as a case study, this article illuminates how the eugenic movement offered solutions that transcended the
distinctions between Catholic and secular intellectuals based on shared
ideas about gender difference and the social order in Latin America.
It also contextualizes the Catholic eugenics movement in Chile as part
of the larger social movement inspired by the publication of the papal
encyclical Rerum Novarum in May 1891. Proclaimed by Pope Leo XIII,
the encyclical called upon Catholics to play an active role in ending class
conflict. In practical terms, this caused a flourishing of Catholic social
activism, often referred to as “Catholic Action.”9 Since the text specifically
encouraged Catholics to mitigate what seemed to be the imminent threat
of class warfare, most historical analysis regarding the encyclical has
focused on the impact that it had on the development of Catholic labor
unions or mutual aid societies. Religious historians that focus on Rerum
Novarum typically point to this encyclical as evidence of the Church sup7. Nancy Leys Stepan, “The Hour of Eugenics”: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America
(Ithaca, NY, 1991), 2–3. Stepan argued that, at its most basic, Latin preference for environmental eugenic intervention was based on the work of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck who argued that offspring inherited traits parents acquired in their lifetime.
8. Armando García González, Las trampas del poder: Sanidad, eugenesia y migración,
Cuba y Estados Unidos (1900–1940) (Madrid, 2007); Marisa Miranda and Gustavo Vallejo,
Darwinismo social y eugenesia en el mundo latino (Buenos Aires, 2005); Arturo Orbegoso,
“Eugenesia, tests mentales y degeneración racial en el Perú,” Revista de Psicología 14 (2012),
230–43.
9. On the development of Catholic Action movements in Latin America, see Ana
María Bidegaín, From Catholic Action to Liberation Theology: The Historical Process of the Laity
in Latin America in the Twentieth Century (Notre Dame, 1985); Hannah W. Stewart-Gambino, The Church and Politics in the Chilean Countryside (Boulder, 1992), 4.

120

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

porting workers’ rights.10 However, labor histories of Latin America, particularly those focused on Chile, make very little mention of the encyclical
at all.11 Rather than examining labor activism, this article posits that
Catholic involvement in the human and social sciences offers another way
to consider the impact of the encyclical.
Thus, in addition to revealing the history of racial thought and eugenics in Chile, this article helps to understand better the role of Catholic
intellectuals in the interaction between religion and science in the early
twentieth century more generally. As various historians of science have
shown, Catholicism in particular has been treated as an obstacle to scientific progress in the modern period, especially in the natural sciences.12 This
view has had a disproportionately powerful effect on the history of science
in modern Latin America, as the region has had a high Catholic population since European settlement. When moving into the post-independence
era, histories emphasizing the expansion of liberal republican political ideology also serve to emphasize the turn toward secularism and the corresponding loss of power, influence, and prestige of the Catholic Church in
the public sphere throughout the region.13 The combined effect of these
10. Some examples of the work considering the impact of Rerum Novarum on the
working classes include: Rosa Bruno-Jofré, “The Catholic Church in Chile and the Social
Question in the 1930s,” Catholic Historical Review 99, no. 4 (2013), 703–726; Paul Furlong
and David Curtis, eds., The Church Faces the Modern World: Rerum Novarum and its Impact
(Scunthorpe, 1994); John N. Molony, The Worker Question: A New Historical Perspective on
Rerum Novarum (North Blackburn, 1991); Michael Walsh, “The Myth of Rerum Novarum,”
New Blackfriars 93, no. 1044 (2012), 155–62.
11. See Patrick Barr-Melej, Reforming Chile: Cultural Politics, Nationalism, and the Rise
of the Middle Class (Chapel Hill, 2000); Elizabeth Quay Hutchison, Labors Appropriate to
Their Sex: Gender, Labor, and Politics in Urban Chile, 1900–1930 (Durham, NC, 2001);
Thomas Miller Klubock, Contested Communities: Class, Gender, and Politics in Chile’s El
Teniente Copper Mine, 1904–1951 (Durham, NC, 1998); Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, Gendered Compromises: Political Cultures and the State in Chile, 1920–1950 (Chapel Hill, 2000);
Heidi Tinsman, Partners in Conflict: The Politics of Gender, Sexuality, and Labor in the Chilean
Agrarian Reform, 1950–1973 (Durham, NC, 2002); Peter Winn, Weavers of Revolution: The
Yarur Workers and Chile’s Road to Socialism (Oxford, 1986).
12. In the early nineteenth century, religious belief was seen as a motivating factor
behind the natural sciences. A good example of how this affected scientific developments in
Chile is Patience A. Schell’s The Sociable Sciences: Darwin and His Contemporaries in Chile
(New York, 2013), 4. See also Peter J. Bowler, Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in
Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago, 2001); John F. Haught, “Darwinism and
Catholicism,” in Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought, ed. M. Ruse
(New York, 2013), 485–92; Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths
about Science and Religion (Cambridge, 2009).
13. See Simon Collier and William F. Sater, History of Chile, 1808–2002 (New York,
2004); Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, “Sexuality and Biopower in Chile and Latin America,”

SARAH WALSH

121

two approaches results in the portrayal of the institutional Church in Latin
America almost exclusively as a bastion of political and social conservatism
throughout most of the twentieth century. This article unearths a community of Catholic intellectuals who were inspired by the eugenic movement
and its promise of improving humanity at the biological level. It also
demonstrates that the analytical tools provided by eugenic science to both
Catholic and secular eugenicists regarding racial health were imbued with
the notion that social order was predicated on a supposedly natural patriarchal social structure.
Rerum Novarum as a Foundational Document
In light of the questionable health of the Chilean populace and the
traditional pastoral mission of the Catholic Church in Latin America, it is
not surprising that Rerum Novarum galvanized Catholic social activism
aimed at improving the Chilean population’s racial health. Historians such
as María Luisa Aspe Armella, Patience A. Schell and Ericka Verba all
argue that throughout Latin America Rerum Novarum set the stage for
Catholic intervention into social welfare programs and reform over the
next fifty years at least.14 Among Chilean Catholic intellectuals, Rerum
Novarum was cited as the primary inspiration for engagement with a variety of human and social sciences, including eugenics.
An example of this approach can be found in the January 1917 article
appearing in La revista católica (The Catholic Magazine, LRC) entitled,
“Orientaciones de acción social con motivo del XXV aniversario de la
encíclica Rerum Novarum (Orientations of Social Action in Light of the
Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum),” written by
Martin Rucker Sotomayor (1867–1935). A widely circulated Catholic
periodical founded in Santiago in 1843 and still published today, LRC’s
Political Power and Social Theory 15 (2002), 229–62; Joan Wallach Scott, “Secularism and
Gender Equality” in Religion, the Secular, and the Politics of Sexual Difference, ed. L. E. Cady
and T. Fessenden (New York, 2013), 25–46; Sol Serrano, “La definición de lo público en un
Estado católico: El caso chileno, 1810–1885,” Estudios Públicos 76 (1999), 211–32; Juan
Carlos Yáñez Andrade, Estado, consenso y crisis social: El espacio público en Chile 1900–1920
(Santiago, 2003).
14. María Luisa Aspe Armella, La formación social y política de los católicos mexicanos: La
Acción Católica Mexicana la Unión Nacional de Estudiantes Católicos, 1929–1958 (Mexico City,
2008); Patience A. Schell, “An Honorable Vocation for Ladies: The Work of the Mexico City
Unión de Damas Católicas Mexicanas, 1912–1926,” Journal of Women’s History 10, no. 4
(1999), 78–103; Ericka Verba, Catholic Feminism and the Social Question in Chile, 1910–1917:
the Liga de Damas Chilenas (Lewiston, NY, 2003).

122

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

contributors were both clergy and laypeople and its contents included a
variety of writing styles such as extended considerations of theological
questions, poems, short stories, and general news items. As then rector of
the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Rucker argued that, “The
Encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’ provoked an enormous scientific movement
[among Catholics]. The largest social issues were studied with determination; the principles were set in a precise way and the notable document
commentators immediately enlightened the mind in order to penetrate the
teachings emanating from the Papal See.”15 His statement claimed that the
encyclical paved the way for Catholic scientific inquiry in the modern age
and that Catholic contributions to the human and social sciences would
restore the Church’s reputation as a scientific institution. In other words,
religious figures might once again be seen as contributing to the development of scientific disciplines as they had done for fields like astronomy,
botany, and mathematics in the early modern era.
In the Chilean case, this often meant applying the human and social
sciences to resolving class conflict. In May 1921 an article in honor of the
thirtieth anniversary of the encyclical claimed that it had laid out “the only
remedy” to resolve current social problems.16 Aníbal Carvajal argued that
Rerum Novarum not only illustrated how Catholic intellectuals used the
encyclical to legitimize their entrance into scientific debates. It also
demonstrated how socially conservative ideas permeated eugenic notions of
national racial regeneration. Specifically, that a well functioning, modern
society was founded upon supposedly natural distinctions between human
beings. Carvajal stated that the Pope saw civil society as, “like a human
body, in which exist various members with diverse functions; but they are
so harmoniously intertwined, that they complement each other, they join
together in the unity of the whole, in the beauty of proportion, of order, of
symmetry.”17 This comment is illuminating for a number of reasons. First
15. M(artin) Rucker S(otomayor), “Orientaciones de acción social con motivo del XXV
aniversario de la encíclica Rerum Novarum,” La revista católica no. 371 (20 Jan. 1917), 95. “La
Encíclica ‘Rerum Novarum’ provocó un enorme movimiento científico. Las grandes cuestiones
sociales se estudiaron con empeño; se fijaron los principios de un modo preciso y los comentadores del notable documento dieron luz inmensa a la mente para penetrar en las enseñanzas
de la cátedra pontificia.”
16. A. Carvajal, Pbro., “La enciclica ‘Rerum Novarum,’” La revista católica no. 475 (21
May 1921), 728.
17. Carvajal, “Rerum Novarum,” 730–731. “[E]s como el cuerpo humano, en el cual
son diversos los miembros, diversas sus funciones; pero entrelazados tan armónicamente, que
se complementan, se integran en la unidad del conjunto, en la belleza de la proporción, del
orden, de la simetría.”

SARAH WALSH

123

and foremost, it used biological imagery to explain a socio-political phenomenon. This was not unusual in this period, as many social scientists
often discussed national populations as if they were large biological organisms. Carvajal’s use of this imagery demonstrates that Catholic commentators were equally capable when managing scientific rhetorical devices.
Second, the insistence on each person fulfilling a specific role as part of a
larger social order implicitly relied on socially conservative notions of
human difference. Only a few lines later in the same passage, it becomes
clear that Carvajal only thought of workers as male.18
Rerum Novarum was so influential that Pope Pius XI (1857–1939)
commemorated its fortieth anniversary in 1931 by issuing the encyclical,
Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order. Similar to Rerum
Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno called for the development of human and
social sciences, “with the Church as their guide and teacher.”19 So, too, that
encyclical refined and strengthened Chilean Catholics’ resolve to address
social problems. Jesuit writer Fernando Vives Solar (1871-1935) discussed
this in his March 1932 LRC article, “Qué valor doctrinal tiene las enc.
‘Rerum Novarum’ y ‘Quadragesimo Anno’ (What Doctrinal Value do the
Encyclicals ‘Rerum Novarum’ and ‘Quadragesimo Anno’ Have).” Vives
was a central figure in the formation of a socially conscious branch of the
Chilean Catholic clergy and was a major influence on the politicians who
would go on to form the Falange Nacional.20
In this LRC article, he argued that these two encyclicals served as
“doctrinal instructions” about how to align the natural rights of man with
the labor demands of industrial capitalism.21 More importantly, Vives also
argued that nature had a defined set of laws and that the social order would
only be restored by ensuring that those laws be incorporated into modern
patterns of labor. He wrote, “Natural Ethics deduces, as a first conse18. Carvajal, “Rerum Novarum,” 731. Specifically, he wrote, “Justice, on part of those
on top, to look at the worker not only as a man, equal to them, but as an ennobled
Christian/Justicia, de parte de los de arriba, para mirar al obrero no solo como hombre, igual
a sí, sino como Cristiano ennoblecido por Jesucristo.” Later in the article, he also argues for
decent wages for workers “for his own maintenance and that of his family/a la preservación
del obrero y su familia,” 733.
19. Pius XI, “Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order Quadragesimo Anno,”
(15 May 1931), §19, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html.
20. Bruno-Jofré, “Catholic Church in Chile.”
21. F. Vives Solar, S.J., “Qué valor doctrinal tienen las enc. ‘Rerum Novarum’ y ‘Quadragesimo Anno,’” La revista católica no. 719 (5 Mar. 1932), 162.

124

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

quence, the precepts of the Decalogue, and then establishes a complete
hierarchy of ends. And, as man is an individual and social being by nature,
to harmonize the conflicts that might arise in the realization of those ends,
the science of law, guided by this directing principle, delineates and establishes the rights and obligations of individuals, and those of society at the
familial, professional, political, religious, [and] international levels.”22 This
quote similarly supports the contention that Catholic visions of racial
regeneration in Chile depended on inherently patriarchal notions of how
society was meant to function in nature.
Latin Eugenics Divided: Secular Critiques of Catholic Eugenics
Chilean Catholic zeal for addressing social problems with eugenics
was not met with enthusiasm by secular eugenicists. To them, Catholicism
as a belief system was antithetical to the innovative and free thought scientific advancement necessitated. Secular intellectuals consistently argued
that, at best, religious affiliation suggested a disinterest in modern life. As
such, Catholic eugenicists’ opinions and ideas were considered to be antiscientific or irrelevant to national debates regarding social modernization
and racial health. An example of this appeared in socialist-feminist writer
Clara de la Luz’s speech La mujer y la especie (trabajo leido en el Centro
Demócrata de Santiago el 3 de Mayo de 1913) [Woman and the Species (essay
read in Santiago’s Democratic Centre on May 3, 1913)]. In it, she argued that,
“with a woman who only knows La historia sagrada (The Sacred History—
a selection of Bible stories), Las vidas de los santos (The Lives of the Saints)
and who only goes to mass, leaving abandoned her duties as housewife, one
cannot make a nation, nor form a family.”23
Physician Cora Mayers maintained a similar view in her article for the
Revista de Beneficencia Pública (Public Welfare Review, RBP) in September
1924. The article, “La educacion higiénica de la nacion (The Hygienic Edu22. Vives Solar, “Rerum Novarum y Quadragesimo Anno,” 166. “[L]a Ética Natural
deduce, como primera consecuencia, los preceptos del Decálogo, y establece, luego, toda una
jerarquía de fines. Y como el hombre, es sér individual y sér social por naturaleza, para armonizar los conflictos que puedan sobrevenir en la realización de esos fines, la ciencia del derecho, guiada pore se principio director, deslinda y establece los derechos y deberes individuales,
y los de la sociedad familiar, heril, política, religiosa, internacional.”
23. Clara de la Luz, 3 May 1913, La mujer y la especie (trabajo leido en el Centro Demócrata de Santiago el 3 de Mayo de 1913), Santiago: Imprenta Lee y CA., 20. “Señores, con una
madre así, con una mujer que sólo sepa la Historia Sagrada, la «Vida de los Santos» e ir a
misa dejando abandonado sus deberes de dueña de casa, no se puede hacer patria, ni formar
una familia.”

SARAH W ALSH

125

cation of the Nation),” mostly discussed Mayers’ recent trip to the United
States. In particular, she focused on how successfully schools in the United
States were able to indoctrinate tenets of hygienic practice into the lives of
their students. This was vital to solving many eugenic problems in Chile, she
wrote, because, “the value of [public health] means absolutely nothing while
the collective spirit does not perfectly fathom that these measures . . . are
indispensable to social welfare.”24 She then outlined the spaces in which
people might best learn these practices, “sanitary services, schools, hospitals,
sanatoriums, dispensaries, the armed services, large factories and warehouses,
life and health insurance companies, mutual benefit societies, cooperatives,
civic centers, etc., etc.”25 In a lengthy list of public spaces and institutions
that might contribute to the eugenic improvement of the population,
churches and their priests were conspicuously absent. Mayers’ focus on the
school as the best space for hygienic instruction was not casual. It fit with the
simultaneous push on the part of other segments of the secular social reform
movement to create a mandatory public education system in order to challenge a perceived Catholic monopoly on education in Chile.26
Focusing on the school as the primary site for public health instruction
also served another purpose. It allowed Mayers to obliquely critique Catholic
charitable organizations. She concluded her essay with the following comment, “We believe that we have demonstrated then that the primary source
from which hygiene should emanate is the school, and that only when this has
been able to foment the civic spirit of future citizens then we will be sure that
the measures taken by Public Powers will yield the expected [results] and
that the monies spent on public health will not be monies thrown away in
the street.”27 Invoking the image of the street, this statement alluded to beggars and vagabonds who depended upon charity to survive. This image con-

24. Cora Mayers, “La educacion higiénica de la nacion,” Revista de Beneficencia Pública
no. 3 (Sept. 1924), 199. “El rendimiento de las medidas que los Poderes Públicos dicten para
combatir o evitar las enfermedades, no será de absoluto valor mientras el espíritu colectivo no
se penetre perfectamente de que tales medidas van a salvaguardar sus propios intereses y que
ellas son indispensables para el bienestar social.”
25. Mayers, “Educacion higiénica,” 199. “[S]ervicios sanitarios, escuelas, hospitales,
sanatorios, dispensarios, ejército y armada, grandes fábricas y almacenes, compañías de seguros de vida e invalidez, mutualidades, cooperativas, centros cívicos, etc., etc.”
26. Collier and Sater, History of Chile, 180.
27. Mayers, “Educacion higiénica,” 202. “Creemos haber demostrado pues que el foco
principal de donde debe irradiar la higiene es la escuela, y que solo cuando ésta haya logrado
formar el espíritu cívico de los futuros ciudadanos, entonces podremos estar ciertos de que las
medidas de los Poderes Públicos rendirán como se espera y que los dineros gastados en beneficio de la salubridad general, no son dineros botados a la calle.”

126

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

veyed one of the more powerful anti-Catholic arguments secular eugenicists
and social reformers made: that Catholic charity was not commensurate with
the scientific rigor of secular eugenic social reform.
Questioning the ultimate purpose of Catholic charity was a common
trope among secular eugenicists in Chile. In a 1927 article in the professional journal Servicio Social (Social Work) entitled, “De la caridad al servicio social (From Charity to Social Work),” social worker Leo Cordemans
did just that. She wrote, “Assistance has evolved from Charity, which is an
immediate donation, without worrying about tomorrow, calming the call
of hunger, cold, pain, Philanthropy which has an organization and a
defined purpose . . . and, finally, Social Assistance whose purpose is the most
perfect adaptation possible of the individual to his environment.”28 Cordemans wrote this article while working as director of the Escuela de Servicio
Social de la Junta de Beneficencia (School of Social Work of the Welfare
Committee).29 Founded by Belgian social worker Jenny Bernier in 1925,
the Escuela de Servicio Social was the first school of its kind in Latin
America.30 Under the direction of Cordemans, Bernier’s successor and also
a Belgian, the school emphasized a brand of social work that sought to
teach clients to “do for themselves.”31
According to Cordemans, social work was far better than charity not
only because it taught individuals to fend for themselves. The difference
between social work and charity was also based, in large part, on social
work’s scientific methodology.32 “The system that demands this assistance
is Social Service, a true science that encapsulates the rubrics of social diagnosis, those of treatment based on preventative and curative measures, with
the exception of procedures that are simply palliative mentioned above.”33
As Cordemans argued in her article, social work did not simply ameliorate
28. Leo Cordemans, “De la caridad al servicio social,” Servicio Social no. 1–2 (March–
June 1927), 7. “La asistencia ha evolucionado de la Caridad, que es la dádiva inmediata, sin
preocuparse del mañana, calmando el grito del hambre, del frío, del dolor, a la Filantropía que
supone una organización y un fin definido…y, en fin, a la Asistencia Social cuyo fin es la adaptación la más perfecta posible del individuo a su medio.”
29. María Angélica Illanes, Cuerpo y sangre de la política: La construcción histórica de las
Visitadoras Sociales (1887–1940) (Santiago, 2006), 281.
30. Illanes, Cuerpo y sangre, 273–75.
31. Illanes, Cuerpo y sangre, 282.
32. Illanes, Cuerpo y sangre, 282.
33. Cordemans, “Caridad,” 7. “El sistema que reclama esta asistencia es el Servicio
Social, verdadera ciencia que encierra las reglas del diagnóstico social, las del tratamiento basadas sobre las medidas preventivas o curativas, con exclusión de los procedimientos simplemente paliativos citados más arriba.”

S ARAH W ALSH

127

existing problems but used the tools of the social sciences to anticipate and
solve them. She believed that social work, when properly applied, would
eradicate social problems; something charity never attempted to do. This
approach not only implied that the Church fostered an exploitative power
relationship with the poor, but also that religious belief was not compatible
with scientific problem solving. As such, secular eugenicists portrayed
Catholic belief as antithetical to efforts at social modernization in Chile.
“Catholicizing” Latin Eugenics: Catholic Responses to
Secular Skepticism
Unsurprisingly, in response to these critiques, a central aspect of
Chilean Catholic writing regarding the eugenics movement focused on
how Catholic belief and practice fit into modern life. As early as 1906, an
anonymous author in the LRC wrote that secular social reformers and
eugenicists did everything in their power to “be able to present the Church
as an enemy of progress and the welfare of the people.”34 Progress, social
welfare, and modernity were intimately linked for both secular and
Catholic eugenicists in Chile. Thus, this anonymous writer was correct in
his or her assessment that secular efforts to portray the Catholic Church as
anti-modern also served to characterize it as against the working classes, a
key tenet of secular social reform discourse. In response, the author contended that Catholic social reformers did not object to modern, eugenic
initiatives to improve the lives of working people. Instead, he or she argued
that modernity itself was an illusion.
Modernism has some novelty, [but] in its foundations and tendencies it
is as old as man [himself]. To free oneself from the yoke of authority, to
end the restrictions on liberty, to have a more open critique, as it is sometimes described, this and no less was what Eve did in Paradise by breaking divine law and it has been repeating itself in different forms and with
new names, and it will continue to repeat while that spirit of rebellion
against legitimate authority reigns.35

34. “Un nuevo peligro para los católicos,” La revista católica no. 124 (15 Sept. 1906),
260. “[P]ara poder así presentar á la Iglesia como enemiga del progreso y bienestar de los
pueblos.”
35. “Nuevo peligro,” 261. “Si en su forma, pues, tiene el Modernismo alguna novedad,
en su fondo, en sus fundamentos y tendencias es tan viejo como el hombre. Sacudir el yugo
de la autoridad, cortar las restricciones de nuestra libertad, tener un criterio más abierto, como
suele decirse, eso y no otra cosa fué lo que hizo Eva en el Paraíso al quebrantar el precepto
divino y ha venido repitiéndose bajo formas distintas y con nombres nuevos, y se repetirá
mientras haya sobre la tierra ese espíritu de rebelión contra la legítima autoridad.”

128

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

By claiming that social problems were timeless and the result of the fundamental rebelliousness of human nature, this argument created conceptual
space for Catholics in the Chilean eugenic movement. Indeed this statement implied that religious institutions were vital to imposing the necessary social order against which humanity pushed.
It is important to recognize that, while emphasizing links with the past,
this article did not argue that an end to scientific or social progress was
desirable. Nor did it call for a return to a previous era in which the Catholic
Church had more economic, political, or social power. Rather, it claimed
that social tensions currently associated with social modernization were
actually a constant in human history. Correspondingly, secular detractors’
appeals to modernity were nothing more than rhetorical devices. This was
an unusual approach and no other Chilean Catholic writer made the same
argument. Even so, it formed part of a larger Catholic body of writing from
the same period that sought to show that religious belief was an important
part of the human experience and should therefore be incorporated into
debates within the human and social sciences.
Though Chilean Catholic intellectuals did not see religion and science
as opposites, the repetitiveness of their discourse and its tropes suggests
that it was difficult to convince secular audiences that this relationship was
not one of conflict. One of the most voluble representatives supporting the
idea that Catholicism was not anti-modern was the Conservative Party
politician Ricardo Cox Méndez (1870–1952). Cox originally studied medicine and was awarded his medical degree in 1895. However, he was not
able to practice as a physician due to his family’s need to maintain their
agricultural holdings. Instead, he pursued his interest in science, medicine,
and religion on his own time, becoming a member of the Sociedad Científica de Chile (Scientific Society of Chile) and writing for a number of
Christian periodicals at the turn of the twentieth century.36 In his own life,
then, he was able to maintain a strong commitment to both his Catholic
faith and his belief in science as a tool of national progress.
In his September 1909 El Mercurio article “Orientaciones contemporáneas del catolicismo (Contemporary Orientations of Catholicism),”
Cox argued that Catholic interest in the eugenic movement grew out of the
fact that the Church was a dynamic and vibrant social institution that
36. Cox remained committed to advocating for the Church throughout his life; see S.
Andes, The Vatican and Catholic Activism in Mexico and Chile: The Politics of Transnational
Catholicism, 1920–1940 (Oxford, 2014), 122–123.

SARAH WALSH

129

always played a role in contemporary society. “But the Church lives in the
world and lives in history, that is, lives between the waves of human generation and the vicissitudes of events: and in the midst of this perpetually
agitated sea, as all boats on the move, it inclines to one side, and then the
other; more, with the prow always pointed to the far horizon, where the
sun of eternal justice shines.”37 Cox believed that Catholic involvement in
eugenics was evidence of the popular demand for that involvement. The
Church was nothing if not the servant of its members. Therefore, he
argued, Catholic efforts to engage in eugenic science to address social
problems was not the result of self-interest but grew from an authentic
desire to serve the people the institution was obligated to protect.
This sentiment was echoed in a similar article that appeared in the
LRC in 1910. Father Samuel de Santa Teresa considered this issue in his
article, “El Católico de Hoy (Today’s Catholic).” A friar of the Discalced
Carmelite Order in Viña del Mar, Santa Teresa was a regular contributor
to the magazine between 1905 and 1910. In this article he argued, “today’s
Catholic has to develop his behavior today, in the day in which he lives, in
the century in which he lives and in the country in which he lives, exactly
the same as those Catholics of all days, centuries and countries.”38 Clearly,
Santa Teresa believed that it was a Catholic’s duty to participate actively in
the national and historical context in which he or she lived; pining for an
idyllic, bygone era served no purpose. The consistent emphasis on Catholicism’s traditional pastoral role helped early twentieth-century Catholics to
extend that mission into the more strictly scientific debates arising from
eugenic social modernization theories popular in the period.
Because secular detractors focused on charity, Catholic intellectuals
also discussed it at length. Typically, this involved discussing the relationship between social work and charity in genealogical terms. In Luisa
Jörinssen’s [spelled Jörrisen in the article] 1931 LRC article, “El concepto
de caridad en la Asistencia Social (The Concept of Charity in Social
37. Ricardo Cox Méndez, “Orientaciones contemporáneas del catolicismo,” El Mercurio no. 4323 (17 Sept. 1909), 5. “Pero la Iglesia vive en el mundo y vive en la historia, es decir,
vive entre el oleaje de la jeneracion humana y de las vicisitudes de los acontecimientos: y en
medio de este mar perpetuamente ajitado, como toda nave en marcha, ya se inclina de un lado,
ya del otro: mas, con la proa enderezada siempre hacia el horizante lejado, donde brilla el sol
de la eternal justicia.”
38. Samuel de Santa Teresa, “El católico de hoy,” La revista católica no. 214 (18 June
1910), 836. “[E]l católico de hoy tiene que desarrollar su acción hoy, en el día en que vive, en
el siglo en que vive y en el país en que vive, lo mismo exactamente que los católicos de todos
los días, de todos los siglos y de todo los países.”

130

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

Work),” she argued that, “Before all, that which we have to make clear is
that there is no charity that exists that does not have a religious background.”39
Like Cordemans, Jörinssen (a German) was writing as the European director of a Chilean school of social work. From 1929 to 1933, she headed the
Escuela de Servicio Social «Elvira Matta de Cruchaga» at the Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile.40 As such, it was not surprising that
Jörinssen conflated charity with social work. Positing that there was no distinction between the two, and that both originated from religious motivations, struck squarely at naysayers like Cordemans who argued that
Catholics had no business in the eugenics movement.
While Jörinssen’s strategy was to insist that all social work had its
foundation in charity, other Catholic writers focused on the relationship
between scientific thinking and charity. In 1940 Jörinssen’s social work
school co-founder, Rebeca Yzquierdo Philipps, wrote a pamphlet for the
school exploring this connection.41 In it, she too argued that the charitable
impulse was not in opposition to the desire to apply rigorous scientific procedures to study social problems. She contended, “But to treat the scientific
advancements of modern civilization as opposed to Christianity, and
replace the one with the other, we should declare an error. Charity can do
nothing but gain [from social work], if it cautiously takes advantage of
these advances to amplify and make more efficient its works. Rationalization, organization, scientific technique, everything should be taken advantage of in our works, Charity itself demands in its desire for more perfection.”42 In this statement, it is clear that Yzquierdo saw religion and science
as mutually beneficial pathways to the same goal. Even more important,
the social crises facing the working classes were so pronounced that governments could not be expected to address all of those issues.43

39. Luisa Jörinssen, “El concepto de caridad en la Asistencia Social,” La revista católica
no. 699 (11 Apr. 1931), 322. “Ante todo, lo que hemos de dejar en claro es que no existe caridad que no tenga un fondo religioso.”
40. Illanes, Cuerpo y sangre, 289.
41. “Homenaje a Rebeca Izquierdo, fundadora Escuela de Trabajo Social,” Revista Trabajo Social (1977), 57–64.
42. R. Yzquierdo Philipps, La Caridad (Santiago de Chile, 1940), 24. “Pero tratar de
oponer los adelantos científicos de la civilización moderna al cristianismo, y reemplazar el uno
por el otro, debemos declarar que es un error. La Caridad no puede sino ganar, si sabe aprovecharse con cautela de estos adelantos para ampliar y hacer más eficaz su acción. Racionalización, organización técnica científica, todo debe ser aprovechado en bien de nuestras obras,
la Caridad misma lo exige en su anhelo de mayor perfección.”
43. Yzquierdo Philipps, La Caridad, 24.

SARAH WALSH

131

The Chilean Marriage Crisis: A Case Study of Shared Sensibilities
Despite secular antipathy for Catholic practice, both secular and
Catholic eugenicists were committed to the notion that a modernized patriarchal social order would protect and improve the racial health of the
Chilean populace. Press coverage relating to so-called marriage crisis of the
interwar period was one of the most illustrative examples of this overlap in
secular and Catholic perspectives. Though the texts discussed in this section
were written between 1918 and 1933, this was not the first marriage crisis
Chile had weathered. The first wave of concern about marriage began in the
1880s. At that time, then president Domingo Santa María instituted a
series of “leyes laícas (secular laws)” designed to curb the church’s social and
political influence. This included a series of laws that secularized public
cemeteries (1883), formed the Civil Registry (which recorded births,
deaths, and marriages) (1884), and recognized civil marriage (1884).44
Unsurprisingly, these laws provoked a vociferous Catholic debate about the
nature of marriage in a secular state. This debate was not unwarranted. The
1884 civil marriage law was somewhat flawed in that it did not explicitly
prohibit religious ceremonies nor did it require civil marriage. As a result
many Catholics were quick to point out that, under this new law, an individual could potentially practice legal bigamy because he or she could marry
one person in a religious ceremony and a different one in a civil ceremony.
The problem was exacerbated when, in protest, Bishop Joaquín Larraín
Gandarillas actually encouraged Catholics to avoid having a civil ceremony.
This state of affairs was finally addressed in 1897 through a Papal intervention that instructed Chilean clergy members to strongly encourage their followers to obtain a civil marriage after the religious ceremony.45
The marriage crisis of the interwar years, however, was not the result
of legal wrangling. Rather, it was the manifestation of fears regarding the
degeneration of the Chilean race as evidenced by gender inappropriate
behavior among both young men and women. Even more striking, both
secular and Catholic eugenicists discussed this issue in much the same way.
An article appearing in a 1918 edition of El Mercurio illustrated secular
concerns regarding marriage rates. In it, the author lamented the fact that
Chileans were not marrying in large enough numbers. Identified as
“Merlin,” the writer placed the blame for this situation squarely on male
reticence. Specifically, Merlin claimed that Chilean men no longer seemed
capable of (or interested in) establishing and maintaining marital relation44. Collier and Sater, History of Chile, 150.
45. Collier and Sater, History of Chile, 171.

132

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

ships with women. “The man cowers; the girl calls and is not pursued.”46
This article is a rare example of men being held accountable for the destabilization of society through their collective inaction and implied effeminacy.47 In this case, men were the ones who had moved away from their
biologically determined gender roles. Eugenic theory relied upon the
notion that the male of the species was supposed to aggressively pursue the
female in order to establish a sexual relationship that would ultimately produce offspring. However, according to Merlin, Chilean men had become
too retiring and timid.
To prove his point, the article discussed a thirty-year-old single man
as an example of Chilean racial degeneracy. Merlin described the youth as
bald and weak from both hereditary causes and Chile’s poor environmental
conditions. This rather harsh physical description was meant to illustrate
that the man in this article was already losing his virility at the very age that
most Chilean medical experts agreed men were at their biological prime for
having and raising children.48 Merlin went on to quote the man as saying
that he was not interested in getting married because, “the girls are pretty
and mature; but very badly raised, they spend a lot on clothes, they want
cars, they are all the same, and they do not know one useful thing.”49
Merlin did not disagree with the unlucky young man in his assessment of
modern women as frivolous and too concerned with luxury, but he did
blame the youth all the same because he was neither fulfilling his biological
duty to procreate nor his societal obligation to marry. Rather, he had
chosen to live the easy life of a bachelor and avoid his responsibility to the
race. Merlin used this example to demonstrate that the Chilean race was in
decline because modern life had disrupted a fundamental part of the biologically defined social order: a marital relationship with a man as its leader
that produced children.
Merlin’s article, though seemingly a fairly humorous and light treatment
of a serious problem, provoked a number of letters to El Mercurio’s editor. As
the editor wrote in the next day’s issue, “the sincerity of [the letters] reveals
that we have really touched upon a sensitive issue, even though our language
46. Merlin, “Un problema social,” El Mercurio no. 6401 (12 Jan. 1918), 3. “El hombre
retrocede: la niña llama y no es seguida.”
47. Out of a total of 387 documents I examined which discussed idealized gender
norms and behaviors, 251 were about women.
48. J. B. Olavarrieta, Higene del matrimonio (Santiago, 1933).
49. Merlin, “Un problema social,” 3. “[L]as chicas están bonitas y maduras; pero muy
mal criadas, gastan mucho en vestirse, quieren automóvil, son todas iguales, y no saben ninguna cosa útil.”

SARAH WALSH

133

has not been as delicate as it should in these items.”50 One such letter was
published in its entirety. However, much like Merlin’s letter before it, this
one was submitted under the pen name “Eugenia Grandet.” Using the name
of the heroine in Honoré Balzac’s Eugénie Grandet (1833), this author agreed
that there was a marriage crisis of vast proportion affecting not only Santiago
but also the entire world. In her words, “Is this phenomenon limited only to
Santiago? Or has the marriage crisis that was noted across the globe before
the war finally arrived at its apogee in this remote country which receives
ideas, fashions, and even post [parcels] with considerable delay?”51 Aside
from this rather bleak estimation of Chile’s connection to the wider world,
Grandet’s claim demonstrates that the marriage crisis was perceived to be a
significant problem at an international and local level.
Unlike Merlin, however, Grandet places the blame more equally on
both young men and women. Perhaps explaining her choice of pen name,
the author argues that mothers no longer properly instructed or educated
their daughters in the choice of marriage partner and that this combined
with an unfortunate influx of families with “new” money.52 According to
Grandet, Chilean families were now much more willing to accept personal
failings of potential marriage partners if they could offer significant financial advantages. This fostered the notion of a marriage market that was only
further convoluted by a Darwinian understanding of sexual attraction.
Grandet argues that, in El Mercurio itself, a recently published article stated
that, “Darwin had observed that the female in nature was that which
adorned herself to attract a mate.”53 While this made women’s interest in
fashion seem less capricious, it also had the unfortunate effect of making
all young women seem interchangeable. And this, Grandet claimed, was
the real point of Merlin’s article with which she agreed. In the face of
dozens of women with similar tastes, ideas, and manners, men found

50. E. Grandet, “La crisis matrimonial,” El Mercurio no. 6402 (13 Jan. 1918), 5.
“[C]uya sinceridad revela que hemos tocado realmente un punto sensible, aunque nuestro lenguaje no haya sido todo lo delicado que en estas materias debe de ser.”
51. Grandet, “La crisis matrimonial,” 5. “¿Será solamente de Santiago el fenómeno? ¿O
la crisis matrimonial que se notaba en el mundo, antes de la Guerra, ha llegado a su apogeo en
este apartado país que recibe ideas, modas y hasta encomiendas postales con bastante atraso?”
52. Grandet, “La crisis matrimonial,” 5. At its most basic, the plot of Eugénie Grandet
revolves around the notion that the heroine’s marriage options are severely impacted by the
financial desires of the men around her. Her father, as well as her various suitors, use Eugénie
as a pawn to enhance their own fortunes. This is, in part, due to the fact that their fortunes
are newly gained and corrupt the men in their acquisition.
53. Grandet, “La crisis matrimonial,” 5. “Decía ese artículo que Darwin había observado que la hembra en la naturaleza era la que se engalanaba para atraer su compañero.”

134

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

themselves paralyzed by the effort of choosing and simply decided that it
was better not to marry at all.54 Ultimately, this male disinterest in authentic connection with females caused both men and women to fail at achieving their primary goal: a successful marriage which would further the
development of the Chilean race.
In 1933, fifteen years after the previous exchange, El Mercurio published
another article about the marriage crisis. This article, however, held women
exclusively accountable for the problem. Contributor and feminist activist
María Besa de Díaz Garcés wrote, “Anti-family ideas float in the air like
miasmas over swamps.”55 Though her involvement in the founding of the
Partido Feminino de Chile (Chilean Women’s Party) showed her commitment to secularism, feminism, and social modernization more generally,
Besa de Díaz contended that social and political radicals were trying to make
Chileans believe that modern life required the rejection of family and obligation in favor of a life of individualism and indulgence.56 The article argued
that divorce legislation then under consideration in the Chilean Senate was
an example of the crisis facing marriage and represented a step backward in
terms of national social progress. Besa de Diaz argued that it was up to
women to correct this problem by returning to the skills with which biology
had endowed them. “Finally, the woman that knows society’s conscience,
feels the weight of that high calling of saving it upon her, lending it her quiet
experience of centuries, her honor and sincerity to help man untangle the
complicated skein of life.”57 Here, she characterized the natural relationship
between men and women as a timeless interaction between masters and
helpmates and that this relationship was best realized through marriage.
Focusing on marriage had the unintended result of making Catholics
feel especially welcome to weigh in on the issue. In fact, throughout Latin
America, the Catholic Church had advocated for the formalization of
sexual relationships that produced offspring since the colonial period
because illegitimacy presented both spiritual and legal problems.58 It is not
54. Grandet, “La crisis matrimonial,” 5.
55. M. Besa de Díaz, “Ideas que vivifican, ideas que matan” El Mercurio no. 17,747 (22
June 1933), 7. “Las ideas antifamiliares flotan en el aire como las miasmas sobre los pantanos.”
56. Besa de Díaz, “Ideas que vivifican,” 7.
57. Besa de Díaz, “Ideas que vivifican,” 7. “Finalmente, la mujer que se sabe conciencia
de la sociedad, siente que pesa sobre ellas el altísimo deber de salvarla prestando en la hora
crítica su callada experiencia de siglos, su honradez y sinceridad para ayudar al hombre a
desenredar la embrollada madeja de la vida.”
58. A. Twinam, Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality, and Illegitimacy
in Colonial Spanish America (Stanford, 1999).

SARAH W ALSH

135

surprising then that the interwar years saw a significant amount of debate
within Catholic circles regarding how best to address the marriage crisis as
a eugenic problem. In January 1920, LRC published a Collective Circular
from the Chilean Dioceses. In that circular, the Archbishop of Santiago,
along with the Bishops of San Carlos de Ancud, Concepción, La Serena,
and the General Vicariate of Spain, all stated that Catholics must register
their marriages with civil authorities, suggesting that the papal intervention at the end of the nineteenth century had not had much effect. The circular argued that registering religious unions would support the moral
health of their parishioners as well as the physical health of the nation.59
Religious support of government intervention into marriage was especially
demonstrated in the following statement, “We especially remind [priests
and parishioners] of the prohibition of marriage those who are inscribed in
the Civil Registry as married to a different person than they intend to
marry [in a religious service].”60 To drive this point home, the circular
ordered priests to read it in its entirety to their congregations and explain
it to them four Sundays in a row.61
Despite official calls for Catholics to register their marriages with government authorities, there was no clear consensus among Chilean Catholic
clergy members on this issue. For example, in his November 1920 LRC article entitled, “Deberes de los católicos en los momentos actuales (The Duties
of Catholics in Contemporary Times),” the Catholic Bishop of Concepción,
Gilberto Fuenzalida Guzman (1868–1938), argued that Chileans had
moved away from Catholic teachings, and this was especially evident in their
cavalier attitudes toward marriage. Fuenzalida was one of the more prolific
writers of the Chilean clergy during the interwar period.62 In this article,
mostly about the threats of secularism and socialism, Fuenzalida claimed that
the availability of civil marriage had caused, “the relaxation of familial ties,
the corruption of the home, the illegitimacy of children, the abandonment of
wives, the moral and physical ruin of the family.”63 He argued that the only
59. Crescente Errázuriz, et al., “Circular Colectiva del Episcopado Chileno sobre la
obligación grave de inscribir los matrimonios en el Registro Civil,” La revista católica no. 442
(3 Jan. 1920), 5.
60. Crescente Errázuriz, “Circular Colectiva,” 7. “En especial les recordamos la prohibición de casar a los que estuvieren inscritos en el Registro Civil como casados con una persona distinta de aquello con quien intenten contraer matrimonio.”
61. Crescente Errázuriz, “Circular Colectiva,” 9.
62. Julio Heise Gonzalez, Historia de Chile: el periodo parlamentario, 1861–1925 (Santiago, 1974), 243.
63. Gilberto Fuenzalida Guzman, “Deberes de los católicos en los momentos actuales,”
La revista católica no. 462 (6 Nov. 1920), 692. “[L]a relajacion de los lazos familiares, la

136

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

way to stamp out the improprieties civil marriage had encouraged was to
insist on making marriage a strictly religious matter. Then, heterosexual couplings would be formalized and under unified control, in contrast to the current situation in which both the state and the church offered official avenues
to marriage. His position is striking because, only eleven months earlier in
his capacity as bishop, Fuenzalida had signed the circular requiring Catholics
to register their marriages with civil authorities. In a dazzling moment of
cognitive dissonance, Fuenzalida claimed that those who sought out Christian marriages were being persecuted by secular reformers who, “wanted to
punish those faithful who appeared before God in a temple to implore benedictions prior to appearing before a civil functionary to register the marriage.”64 This situation was unfortunate because it created obstacles for those
couples that did want to marry but might be intimidated by bureaucratic procedures, contributing to the overall marriage crisis.
Fuenzalida’s take on the marriage crisis was similar to that of Mario
Gorostarzu, whose article “El problema social del matrimonio (The Social
Problem of Marriage)” also appeared in LRC. Writing in 1930, he too
argued that the cause of the current marriage crisis had less to do with legal
issues and more to do with the blurry lines separating male and female
behavior. “[T]he modesty of the patriarchal habits stamped out vanity with
the seal of austerity in the domestic economy.”65 The loss of patriarchal
social structures and values, according to Gorostarzu, caused both men and
women to treat the choice of a marriage partner as little more than a game
of chance. Some might approach their choice as strictly a matter of random
luck, like Grandet claimed, “because in the end she believes that all of them
are the same, and because he, with good reason, believes that any of them
will be better than the ones he had in [his] libertinage.”66 Others, however,
might make their choice based on more cold calculations related to wealth.
Marriage partnerships started under these conditions could hardly be
expected to thrive or contribute to the overall health of the Chilean race.
corrupción del hogar, la ilegitimidad de los hijos, el abandono de las esposas, la ruina moral y
física de la familia.”
64. Fuenzalida Guzman, “Deberes de los católicos,” 692. “[P]retenden castigar como
un delito el que los fieles se presenten ante Dios en el temple para implorar sus bendiciones
antes de presentarse ante el funcionario civil para inscribir el matrimonio.”
65. M. Gorostarzu, “El problema social del matrimonio,” La revista católica no. 678 (3
May 1930), 618. “[L]a modestia de los hábitos patriarcales que sobre la exteriorización vana
ponía el sello de la austeridad en la economía domestica.”
66. Gorostarzu, “El problema social,” 619. “[Y]a porque al fin ella cree que todos son
lo mismo, ya porque él, con razón, cree que cualquiera será mejor que las otras que trató en el
libertinaje.”

SARAH W ALSH

137

Yet Gorostarzu did not believe that the marriage crisis was the result
of gender confusion caused by racial degeneration as his secular colleagues
did. Rather, gender confusion was the indication of a much larger social
problem. The real issue, according to him, was a general move away from
faithful religious practice. He wrote, “The abuse of men in the exertion of
marital authority, much like the feminine error in the misplaced [effort] at
achieving independence, are nothing more than two consequences of the
profound imbalance produced by the juridical looting of marriage’s religious nature. . . . Reduced to the category of a simple civil contract, marriage lacks the unique force that makes a perfect union between the bride
and groom.”67 Gorostarzu’s characterization of the cause of the marriage
crisis was quite different from that of his secular counterparts, but it is clear
that all of the eugenicists concerned with the issue believed that the loss of
patriarchal values as a result of social modernization was a central component to Chilean racial degeneration. In this sense, Gorostarzu’s emphasis
on the return to religious practice was part of a much wider spectrum of
social conservatism that included secular eugenicists as well.
Conclusion
This article has examined how social modernization in Chile inspired
a variety of historical actors to engage with eugenic science in the early
twentieth century. Specifically, it shows how eugenics as a discipline carried within it socially conservative ideas regarding gender difference which
facilitated agreement between secular and Catholic eugenicists. This went
very much against what secular social reformers intended as well as what
scholars often expect regarding the relationship between Catholicism and
eugenics. By examining the influence of Rerum Novarum along with the
marriage crisis as a specific site of eugenic concern, this article has shown
how socially conservative ideas regarding racial health and gender helped
to sustain and modernize each other. As such, illuminating the connections between Catholicism and eugenics in Chile helps to unpack the
development of a distinctive type of racial thought in Latin America that
was grounded more in environmentalism than hereditarianism perhaps
contextualizing the Latin American emphasis on culture and class over
phenotype when determining racial categories.
67. Gorostarzu, “El problema social,” 621. “El abuso de los hombres en el ejercicio de la
autoridad marital, como el error femenino en la equívoca conquista de su independencia, no
son más que dos consecuencias del profundo desequilibrio producido por el despojo jurídico a
la naturaleza religiosa del matrimonio . . . Reducido el matrimonio a la categoría de un simple
contrato civil, carece de la fuerza única que lo haga una unión perfecta entre los contrayentes.”

138

RESTORING THE CHILEAN RACE

What ultimately facilitated the similarity between Catholic and secular Chilean eugenicists’ recommendations for addressing the problems they
saw as arising from social modernization was their shared belief in human
difference as a natural and scientific way to organize society. In the face of
incredible political and ideological variety across the individuals discussed
above, every single one of them conceptualized nature as a hierarchy in
which some led and some followed. For these writers, social order would
be restored by insisting on gender difference as a mainstay in order to
improve and protect the Chilean race. The solution to early twentieth-century social problems, then, laid in convincing Chilean men and women to
submit to a legitimate authority that would be able to rationalize and control their behavior for the good of the race. However, the struggle for control between Catholic and secular eugenicists demonstrates that there was
very little consensus regarding who represented that legitimate authority.
While this conflict appeared to write Catholics out of the eugenic movement in Chile, and throughout Latin America, it actually allowed them to
play a meaningful role in increasingly secular societies in the early twentieth century.

“The Empire Strikes Back”: Communities,
Catholic Missions, and Imperial Authority in
Western Tanzania, 1934–1960
SALVATORY S. NYANTO*
This article addresses dissent at the time of the encounter between communities and missionaries in Western Tanzania. It centers on the land
question and culture as sources of contention between the people and
missionaries. It shows that the people’s opposition to eviction from their
land and opposition to missionaries’ interference of their culture called
for dialogue between the people, missionaries, and imperial authority,
and, accordingly, benefitted the parties involved. Using the perspective
from below, the article contributes to the scholarship on dissent to show
how ordinary peasants responded to the need of missionaries for land
and control of the cultural aspects. The article also builds on the idea of
‘long conversation’ from studies on the encounter between communities
and missionaries to show how dissent called for mutual discussion
between communities, missionaries, and imperial authority.
Keywords: Struggle for land, Catholic-Protestant Relations,
Resistance, Imperial Authority, Western Tanzania.
Introduction
ommunities in western Tanzania opposed missionaries’ quest for land
to build schools and buildings for health services through the midtwentieth century. This article explores how communities resisted the
European missionaries’ control and supervision of ‘native’ cultural and
social affairs. By showing people’s refusal to be removed from their land
and their rejection of supervision in socio-cultural affairs, they influenced

C

*Salvatory S. Nyanto is a Lecturer in the Department of History at the University of Dar
es Salaam in Tanzania, email: ssnyanto@gmail.com. His research interests include Christianity, Christian-Muslim Relations, Religion and Empire, and Slavery and Missionaries in Western Tanzania. Contact: P. O. Box 35031, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The author is grateful for
constructive comments from the anonymous reviewers. Their comments and suggestions have
helped to shape the arguments in this paper. The author is also grateful to Rev. Francis P.
Nolan, M.Afr., for his support on specific details of priests mentioned in this article.

139

140

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

missionaries and imperial authority to act in the interests of the people.
Some individuals refused eviction from their land and homesteads, while
others left after thorough negotiations with missionaries and imperial
authority on the one hand and between communities and ‘native’ authority
on the other. Dissent and negotiations provide glimpses into understanding the nature and character of the encounter between the people and missionaries in Western Tanzania. They also demonstrate the intellectual creativity of the people in shaping missionaries and colonial authority on
matters affecting the well-being of the people in the society.
To tell this story of opposition, documents from the Tanzania
National Archives (commonly called TNA) provide a series of correspondences between missionaries and district and provincial authorities in
Western Tanzania. This correspondence covers several issues, including
missionary applications for land to build missions and schools, the struggle
for mission plots between Catholic and Protestant missionaries, attempts
by imperial authorities to regulate land struggles between missionaries, and
responses from the people to the demand for more land. This correspondence is used as a social prism to bring the “subaltern voices” or “voices
from below” into these narratives of the encounter between communities
and missionaries in Western Tanzania.1 In this way, this documentation
reveals the opposition of communities to eviction from their land, their
complaints against missionaries’ control of their affairs, and their call for a
“long conversation” between the people, missionaries, and imperial authority to find workable solutions between the parties involved.2 To supplement the information from the primary sources, secondary sources are used
to examine the missionary enterprise in Western Tanzania and relations
between the colonized and the empire at large.

1. See for instance Guha Ranajit and Gayatri Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies
(Oxford, 1988); Steven Feierman, Peasant Intellectuals: Anthropology and History in Tanzania
(Madison, 1990); James L. Giblin, A History of the Excluded: Making Family a Refuge from
State in Twentieth-Century Tanzania (Oxford, 2005); and Emma Hunter, Political Thought
and the Public Sphere in Tanzania: Freedom, Democracy and Citizenship in the Era of Decolonization (Cambridge, 2015).
2. I have adopted the term “long conversation” from Jean and John Comaroff to
describe the back and forth discussion between communities and missionaries in western
Tanzania. For details see Jean and John Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity,
Colonialism and Consciousness in South Africa, Volume One (London, 1991), 243. The term has
continued to attract scholarly attention in memory studies and social theory in the postapartheid situation in South Africa. See for instance, Zolani Ngwane, “‘The Long-Conversation’: The Enduring Salience of Nineteenth-Century Missionary/Colonial Encounters in
Post-Apartheid South Africa,” Interventions 3, no. 1 (2001), 65–75.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

141

The Society of Missionaries of Africa (commonly called, White
Fathers) ventured into Western Tanzania in 1878 and 1879 to fulfil the
desire of its founder, Cardinal Charles Allemand Lavigerie, of making the
interior of Africa a “specialized ministry.”3 In 1894, the Society of the Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Africa (commonly called, White Sisters)
joined the White Fathers to take care of the orphans and to provide education and health services to the people of Ushirombo, Ndala, and Kipalapala missions.4 The White Fathers opened the earliest missions in the present Kigoma diocese (formerly, part of the vicariate of Tanganyika), which
forms the focus of this study in Buyenzi-Mulera in 1926. Six missions followed between 1932 and 1937. They included Nyaronga, Mabamba,
Kakonko, Rutende, Makere, Kabanga, and Kiganza missions. Instead, this
article, however, draws examples from the missions of Mabamba and
Kakonko, established in 1932 and 1933 respectively.5 For the Protestant
missionaries, the German Breklum mission worked in Western Tanzania
until the First World War, when the German Lutheran Neuenkirchen
took its mission buildings. Missionaries of the Church Missionary Society
(CMS) opened the first mission in Muhambwe (Kibondo) in 1934. They
also took over the missions of the Neuenkirchen mission after the Second
World War. And the Swedish Free Mission opened two missions: Msambara in 1933 and Bigabiro (Mwandiga) in 1935.6

3. Jean-Claude Ceillier, Histoire des Missionnaires d’Afrique (Pères Blancs) e la fondation
par Mgr Lavigerie à la mort du fondateur (1868–1892) (Paris, 2008), 224–225; History of the
Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers): From the Beginning of their Foundation by Msgr. Lavigerie until his Death, trans. Aylward Shorter (Nairobi, 2011), 15; Francis P. Nolan, Mission
to the Great Lakes: The White Fathers in Western Tanzania 1878–1978 (Kipalapala, 1978), 17;
Lucas Malishi, Introduction to the History of Christianity in Africa (Kipalapala, 1987), 127.
4. Jacqueline Paulhus, Go to my People: Missionaries in Tanzania, 1894–1994 (n.p.,
1994), 59.
5. Georg Leisner and Ludovick Matanwa, Miaka Mia Jimboni Kigoma 1879–1979
(Tabora, 1979), 35–37; Hugo Hinfelaar, M. Afr., Footsteps on the Sands of Time: A Life of
Bishop Jan van Sambeek (Rome, 2007), 49. Other missions which were established between
1939 and 1959 included Marumba, Muhinda, Kibondo, and Kasulu. The vicariate apostolic
of Tanganyika was established in September 27, 1880. It covered the present-day dioceses of
Sumbawanga, Mpanda, and Kigoma in Tanzania and the present-day Rwanda, Burundi,
DRC, Malawi, and Zambia. On May 10, 1946, Kigoma became an independent vicariate,
and on March 25, 1953, it became a full-fledged diocese.
6. Johan H. Scherer, “The Ha of Tanganyika,” Anthropos, Bd. 54, H.5./6. (1959), 899;
Simon Kakete et al., “Kanisa la Pentekoste Bigabiro, Jubilii 1935–1985” (n.p., 1985), 5 and
14; Tanganyika National Archives (hereafter, TNA) “Report on Tanganyika Territory for the
Year 1940,” 63.

142

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

Communities, Dissent, and Imperial Authority in
Historiographical Context
The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, published in
1982, remains a controversial work, still stirring scholarly debates in the
fields of race, ethnic studies, media studies, and sociology.7 As a collection
of essays on race and politics by seven contributors, the book shows, among
other things, how ideas of race, migration, nation, and inequality in Britain
posed a new threat to the government in the 1960s and the 1970s. The
government’s model of subversion of student movements, the anti-Vietnam War movement, trade unions, and polarization between Catholic and
Protestant communities in Northern Ireland came to be conceptualized as
the “enemy within.”8 Three decades later in 2014, editors of the journal
Ethnic and Racial Studies organized a symposium wherein six scholars presented their reflections on the book’s impact over the past three decades,
tackling issues it raised from different angles. Their reflections culminated
in the publication of a special issue of the journal.9
In due course, the theme of the impact of empire at home (in Britain)
attracted the attention of imperial historians, and, accordingly, it has become
part of the discussions in the discipline of imperial history. The work by
Andrew Thompson pioneered the ‘empire-strikes back’ theme in historical
perspective. His work examines the nature of imperial influences on Britain,
that is, its effects on British domestic history, politics, culture, identity and
nationhood from the second half of the nineteenth century. He uses India as
an example to show how the Indians tended to “strike back” their influences
on Britain’s religious, aesthetics, literary fashions, political philosophy and
public doctrine, and the place of women in the public sphere.10 Recently,
7. Centre for Contemporary Culture, The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s
Britain (London, 1982); John Solomons, “Rethinking The Empire Strikes Back: A Response,”
Ethnic and Racial Studies 37, no. 10 (2014), 1830.
8. John Solomons, et.al., “The Organic Crisis of British Capitalism and Race: The
Experience of the Seventies,” in The Empire Strikes Back, 19–21; Claire Alexander, “The
Empire Strikes Back: 30 Years On,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37, no. 10 (2014), 1785.
9. Solomons, “Rethinking,” 1830–37; Stuart Hall, “Articulations of Race, Class and
Identity,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37, no. 10 (2014), 1667–75, Alexander, “The Empire
Strikes Back,” 1784–92; Satnam Virdee, “Challenging the Empire,” Ethnic and Racial Studies
37, no. 10 (2014), 1823–29; Michael Keith, “How did the Empire Strike Back? Lessons for
Today from The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain,” Ethnic and Racial Studies
37, no. 10 (2014), 1815–22; Gargi Bhattacharyya, “Rereading The Empire Strike Back,” Ethnic
and Racial Studies 37, no. 10 (2014), 1802–07.
10. Andrew Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back? The Impact of Imperialism on Britain
from the Mid-Nineteenth Century (London, 2005), 3–5.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

143

studies by Wendy Webster and Andrew Thompson reveal that even after the
colonies attained independence, the influences of the colonized tenaciously
lived in Britain’s imperial legacy; and that the riots and disturbances of the
ethnic black and Asian migrants in Britain over police discrimination in the
many cities demonstrated the “empire coming home.”11
In East Africa, views about dissent in colonial and post-colonial periods have attracted considerable scholarly attention from historians. The
work of Steven Feierman among the Shambaa of north-eastern Tanzania
shows how peasants resisted the colonial authority’s imposition of agricultural schemes because it discouraged the indigenous authority to “heal and
harm the land,” which had fostered social cohesion.12 Resistance against the
colonial authority continued into the 1950s during the struggle for independence. The work of John Iliffe shows, among other things, the way political
dissidents became a characteristic feature of the late colonial period with
political parties opposing the struggle of the Tanganyika African National
Union (TANU) for majority rule.13 The works of James Giblin, Paul Bjerk,
and James Brennan have extended the discussion of political dissidents to
the post-colonial period. Their perspective, of writing social history from
below, provides glimpses of the nature and character of TANU, the independent government and its policies.14 In recent years, the works of Emma
Hunter, building on the perspective from below, have demonstrated not
only how the people thought and reflected on the early post-colonial state
but how they also debated political concepts in the public sphere.15
11. Andrew Thompson, “Afterword: The Imprint of the Empire,” in Britain’s Experience of Empire in the Twentieth Century, ed. Andrew Thompson (Oxford, 2011), 331–32;
Wendy Webster, “The Empire Comes Home: Commonwealth Migration to Britain” in
Britain’s Experience of Empire in the Twentieth Century, ed. Andrew Thompson (Oxford,
2011), 123–60.
12. Feierman, Peasant Intellectuals, 155 and 188–90.
13. John Iliffe, A Modern History of Tanganyika (Cambridge, 1979), 521–576.
14. Giblin, A History of the Excluded, 245-77; James L. Giblin, “Some Complexities of
Family and State in Colonial Njombe,” in In Search of a Nation: Histories of Authority and Dissidence in Tanzania, ed. Gregory H. Maddox and James L. Giblin (Oxford, 2005), 130; James
Brennan, “The Short History of Political Opposition and Multi-Party Democracy in Tanganyika, 1958–64,” in In Search of a Nation: Histories of Authority and Dissidence in Tanzania,
eds. Gregory H. Maddox and James L. Giblin (Oxford, 2005), 250–69; James Brennan,
Taifa: Making Nation and Race in Urban Tanzania (Athens, 2012), 144–74; Paul Bjerk,
Building a Peaceful Nation: Julius Nyerere and the Establishment of Sovereignty in Tanzania,
1960–1964 (Rochester, 2015), 61–96 and 146–54.
15. Hunter, Political Thought and the Public Sphere, 8–11; Emma Hunter, “The History
and the Affairs of TANU: Intellectual History, Nationalism, and the Postcolonial State in
Tanzania,” The International Journal of African Historical Studies 45, no. 3 (2012), 366.

144

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

Issues about dissent in religion have also attracted the attention of
anthropologists and historians in East Africa. Catherine Robins’ dissertation
on revivalism and dissent in Uganda focuses on revivalists and Church leaders, showing how revivalists refused to “compromise their sectarian principles.”16 Her dissertation pioneered the study of dissent in religion and
opened the field to scholarly inquiries beyond the field of anthropology.
Increasingly, revivalism in East Africa has become a center of inquiry among
theologians, anthropologists, and historians. The works by Jason Bruner,
Daewon Moon, Phillip Cantrell, and an edited volume by Kelvin Ward and
Emma Wild-Wood indicate the growing interest in the field. They examine
this history and its legacy, the politics of public confession, and the
endurance of revivalism in the region.17 In recent years, the work of Derek
Peterson has expanded the discussion on revivalism and dissent to show how
revivalists viewed conversion as a form of “political and cultural criticism,”
emphasizing new ways of living, refusing to act as members of the existing
political communities, and calling for “moral and social reform.”18
This article builds on existing scholarship on dissent in politics, religion, and the empire but moves in a new direction to examine dissent in
colonial Western Tanzania, centering on communities, missionaries, and
imperial authority. It specifically examines the ways the people of Western
Tanzania resisted missionaries’ control of their cultural affairs and eviction
from their land to make way for the establishment of mission schools. The
people’s refusal to be controlled and evicted from their land influenced how
missionaries and the imperial authority in colonial Tanganyika acted in the
interests of the people. Thus, by building on the perspective from the
below, this article shows how communities in Western Tanzania could
16. Catherine E. Robins, “Tukutendereza: A Study of Social Change and Sectarian Withdrawal in the Balokole Revival of Uganda” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1975), 140–42.
17. Kelvin Ward and Emma Wild-Wood, eds., The East African Revival: History and
Legacies (Surrey, 2012); Jason S. Bruner, “The Politics of Public Confession in the East
African Revival in Uganda, ca. 1930–1950” (PhD diss., Princeton, 2013); Jason S. Bruner,
“Contesting Confession in the East African Revival,” Anglican and Episcopal History 84, no.
3 (2015), 253–278; Jason S. Bruner, Living Salvation in the East African Revival in Uganda
(Rochester, 2017), 46–59; Daewon Moon, “The Conversion of Yosiya Kinuka and the Beginning of the East African Revival,” International Bulletin of Mission Research 41, no. 3 (2017),
204–2014; and Phillip Cantrell, II, “‘We are a Chosen People’: The East African Revival and
Its Return to Post-Genocide Rwanda,” Church History 83, no. 2 (2014), 422–445.
18. Derek R. Peterson, Ethnic Patriotism and the East African Revival: A History of Dissent, c.1935–1972 (Cambridge, 2012), 6 and 173; “Revivalism and Dissent in Colonial East
Africa,” in The East African Revival: History and Legacies (Surrey, 2012), 105–17; “Wordy
Women: Gender Trouble and the Oral Politics of the East African Revival in Northern
Gikuyu Land,” Journal of African History 42 (2001), 469–489.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

145

“strike back” against missionaries on land and socio-cultural issues, and
how they called for intervention from the imperial authority. In this way,
the people became “peasant intellectuals” or “local intellectuals” in shaping
missionaries and imperial authority on matters of land and culture.19 In
some missions, communities held “long conversations” with their “native”
authorities (chiefs and headmen) and expressed their objection to leaving
their homesteads, farms, and grazing areas to give room for more plots for
mission education and health services.
Divided Communities: Land Grabbing, Catholic-Protestant
Relations, and Imperial Authority in Western Tanzania
The need for land for missionary work was one of the key issues that
not only divided communities but also determined the relations between
Catholic and Protestant missionaries in Western Tanzania. White Fathers
and the CMS missionaries determined to acquire more plots of land for
spiritual, health care, and educational purposes, affecting the relations
between them in the area. Before CMS missionaries entered in the region,
communities interacted with the White Fathers, who were the only active
missionaries, and there seemed to be no problem concerning land-related
issues. And, of course, the Provincial Commissioner had authorized
Bishop Joseph-Marie Birraux to carry on with his work “without waiting
for formalities.”20 However, in 1943, the CMS missionaries showed interest in the region and applied for more plots of land in Kasulu and Kibondo
districts. The increasing applications for plots of land created anxiety in the
communities that missionaries would take their land. This fear, too, concerned the Provincial Commissioner, F. J. Bagshawe, who was determined
“to prevent any injustices to communities, which none of the missionaries,
in their own interest, would desire.”21
Locating the mission schools of the White Fathers and the CMS missionaries in proximity to one another conveyed to the communities the
lamentable fact that Europeans, to whom they looked for guidance, did not
agree among themselves about the Christian religion. This division
inevitably would divide the indigenous Christians and their followers in
19. I have adopted the terms “strike back,” “peasant intellectuals,” and “local intellectuals” from Andrew Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back, 2005, Steven Feierman, Peasant Intellectuals, 1990, and Emma Hunter “The History and Affairs,” 2012.
20. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, F. J. Bagshawe, to the Land Officer of
Tanganyika Territory, April 26, 1934, 22252/1, Ref. no. 43/39/17, TNA.
21. Ibid.

146

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

MAP 1. Catholic and Protestant Missions in Western Tanzania (currently, Kigoma),
1930–1960

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

147

the region.22 The division among communities soon became evident in the
concentrated areas of Nyavyumbu, Kagera, Heru-Ushingo and Rungwe,
following the desire of the CMS for plots of land in these areas where the
White Fathers had already established themselves. Protestant missionaries’
desire for land also worried the communities as it meant more plots of land
for cultivation and grazing would be taken to establish new missions,
schools, and health services in the areas.23
To prevent religious divisions and injustice to communities over land,
the Provincial Commissioner proposed a “three mile-limit” regulation for
the White Fathers and CMS to adhere to when establishing schools.
However, in areas where one missionary society had already established
itself, the principle of “first come, best served” was to be applied.24 It seems
the minimum of three miles’ distance between missionaries could not end
divisions and possibly land grabbing from the communities as in some
areas Catholic and Protestant schools would be established in greater proximity. Thus, the Provincial Commissioner proposed a ten-mile limit,
hoping to end the unnecessary divisions among communities in the many
areas where the White Fathers and CMS had applied for land.25
The first come-best served principle proved successful in lessening
community divisions, uprisings, and missionary tensions in Kasulu town.
The CMS had already established themselves in the town, and, consequently, the District commissioner refused in 1935 to let Father Pineau*
and Brother Gerard van Dam Emile open a mission station at Kimobwa
near the District headquarters. Following the rejection by the district
authority, the White Fathers relinquished their interest and opened their
mission station at Kabanga about five miles from the Kasulu town.26 The
22. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, F. J. Bagshawe, to Mr. Bakewell, May
2, 1934, 22252/5, Ref. no. 49/4/48, TNA.
23. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, F. J. Bagshawe, to the Chief Secretary
to the Government, Tanganyika Territory, January 3, 1934, 180/C32 Vol.1, Confidential no.
43/39/22, TNA.
24. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, F. J. Bagshawe, to Mr. Bakewell, May
2, 1934, 22252/5, Ref. no. 49/4/48, TNA.
25. Ibid.
26. Georg Leisner and Ludovick A. Matanwa, Miaka Mia Jimboni Kigoma 1879–1979
(Tabora, 1979), 33. *The Society of Missionaries of Africa has had three priests called
“Pineau.” Father Arthur Pineau died in France at the age of 89 on October 22, 1972; Father
Jean-Marie Pineau died in France at the age of 84 on August 13, 1965; and Father Henri
Pineau also died in France at the age of 84 on August 25, 1987. However, the sources I have
consulted for this article do not mention the specific priest who worked at Kabanga mission
between the 1934 and 1960.

148

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

latter had neither a mission nor a school of the CMS, and occupying the
more uninhabited land in the area would not cause resentments from the
communities. A similar case occurred in Kibondo where the District commissioner turned down the request of Father Van den Dobblesten to secure
a place in the town because the CMS missionaries had already been running
a school in the town. Thus, allowing the White Fathers to locate there
would lead to tensions between missionaries over land and their followers.27
The residents of Mwandiga, like those in some areas of Kasulu and
Kibondo, were drawn into the tensions between Catholics and Protestants.
Both the White Fathers and the Swedish Free Mission were determined to
exert influence over the area. The people at Kiganza, which was close to
Mwandiga, had already encountered the White Fathers, who established a
school in the village, drawing children from the village and surrounding areas.
More importantly, the people at Kiganza mission and its outstations feared
the unnamed Catholic priest in the mission, who repeatedly told the people
that he had power to punish and make them soldiers. This missionary also
constantly told the people that he had the power to drag them to the District
headquarters to be punished when they refused to send their children to the
school at Kiganza to learn his doctrine.28 This occurrence in Kiganza reveals
the kind of relations between missionaries and the imperial authority. It
attests to the works of Thomas Beidelman, Jean and John Comaroff, and Jeffrey Cox that view missionaries as part of the colonial enterprise.29
The struggle to control people in the Kiganza mission and its surrounding villages ended with Rev. Gustav Struble of the Swedish Free Mission
suggesting separate areas of mission work for both the Catholic and the
Swedish Free missions. He did not see the reason for fighting for control
over the people in one area. He said, “there are so many natives so we do
not need to fight about them. If now this ‘Holy Father’ stays at his place I
will stay at mine, [and] there will be no more trouble.”30 Besides Mwandiga,
the struggle between the two missionary societies were reported in the mis27. Leisner and Matanwa, Miaka Mia, 37; Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, F.
J. Bagshawe, to the Land Officer of Tanganyika Territory, June 25, 1934, 22252/C100, TNA.
28. Letter of Gustav Struble to the District Commissioner for Kigoma, February 9,
1941, 180/C32, TNA.
29. Jean and John Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution, vol. 1; Thomas O. Beidelman, Colonial Evangelism: A Socio-Historical Study of an East African Mission at the Grassroots
(Bloomington, 1982), 5–6; and Jeffrey Cox, Imperial Fault lines: Christianity and Colonial
Power in India, 1818–1940 (Stanford, 2002), 10–11.
30. Letter of Gustav Struble to the District Commissioner for Kigoma, February 9,
1941, 180/C32, TNA.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

149

sions of Bitale and Bweru. White Fathers and Swedish Free Mission
applied for school plots that incidentally were close to each other. Like
other areas, the struggle for mission plots to establish schools divided the
people of Bitale and Bweru, who realized that the European missionaries to
whom they looked as model Christians, did not agree themselves.31
“Communities Strike Back”: The White Fathers, the Quest for Land,
and Imperial Authority in Kakonko
The response of the communities to the missionaries’ need for land
emerged at Kakonko mission in 1952 when the vicar apostolic of Kigoma,
Bishop Jan van Sambeek, applied for an extension of thirty-five acres of
land to build the middle school. The land was covered with African banana
farms and a separate area had been designated for grazing. Moreover, some
African families had been living for many years in the area the vicar apostolic chose.32 Thus, the extension of the plots of land for constructing of the
middle school in addition to the previously granted sixteen acres meant
forcing more people out of their homesteads, and destroying their homesteads and grazing areas. The people held a meeting with the chief of
Buyungu chiefdom, mtemi Wakili Ramadhani, and “the report was against
the extension being granted,” indicating that the people were not ready to
leave their homesteads, farms, and grazing areas for the missionaries to
build a school.33
That the people rejected the White Fathers’ request to extend their
plots of land for a middle school at Kakonko mission worried the District
and the Provincial Commissioners. They suggested that a smaller area or a
completely new site “seemed to be the best solution” to calm the resentments.34 Thus, the District Officer of Kibondo encouraged the bishop and
the Father Superior of Kakonko, Father Joseph Harvey, to look for another
site or to make an application for only the area of the same piece of land
that had no homes. But the communities living in the area used the uninhabited area for grazing. They had a lot of cattle because the Department
31. Letter from the District Commissioner, Kigoma District, “Application for School
Plots,” March 10, 1941, 180/C32, TNA. See also letter from the Provincial Commissioner,
F. J. Bagshawe, to Mr. Bakewell, May 2, 1934, 22252/5, Ref. no. 49/4/48, TNA.
32. Letter from the District Commissioner (Kibondo) to the Provincial Commissioner
of the Western Province, October 7, 1952, 25143/29, TNA.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid., see also the letter from the Provincial Commissioner to the Provincial Educational Officer, Tabora, October 30, 1952, 25143/30, TNA.

150

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

of Agriculture in the district adopted a policy to encourage the people to
domesticate cattle in that area. Granting the White Fathers acres of unoccupied land meant depriving the people of communal grazing land, which
would be the source of tension between missionaries and the people.35
It seemed, however, there was no alternative site close to the mission
where the White Fathers could apply to build the middle school. So, the
only solution was to negotiate with the people living in the desired plots
near the mission. Nonetheless, after extended negotiations among mtemi
Wakili Ramadhani, the people, and the district commissioner, the residents
of the plots that the vicar apostolic sought insisted that they would move
only if the government forced them to go. But they preferred to stay regardless of the compensation offered “if the choice should lie with them.”36
Among people resisting eviction from the land was an elderly African
man, Mihigo. He did not want to leave his homestead on his twenty-acre
plot of land for the White Fathers’ to establish a middle school. Mihigo also
refused to move the hut his wife occupied in the separate plot of land. His
unwillingness to move led the district authority to mark him as a “stubborn
old man.”37 Mihigo’s rejection encouraged other people living on parts of
the claimed land to refuse eviction, despite the compensation offered. The
people demanded that they wanted to continue cultivating their farms and
maintain the banana plantations. It also seemed that the mtemi Wakili
Ramadhani of Kakonko complained to the Provincial Commissioner that
the missionaries did not consult him on the decision to remove people from
their land. In due course, the movement against eviction from the land the
missionaries desired for an extension involved the people living on the land
and made it difficult for the authorities to approve the application without
the consent of the people and the chief of the area.38
35. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner to the Provincial Educational Officer,
November 4, 1952, 25143/31, Ref. no. C/18/266, TNA. Father Joseph Harvey died in Montreal at the age of 79 on May 12, 1979.
36. Letter from the District Officer, Kibondo District, to the Provincial Commissioner,
Western Province, December 4, 1952, 25143/33, Ref. no. 16/9/61, TNA. The words
“Mtemi” and “Mwami” are titles chiefs in the chiefdoms of Western Tanzania. They are used
interchangeably throughout the paper. In all the chiefdoms, succession was hereditary, and
both males and females in the chiefly lineage could become chiefs.
37. Ibid., Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, T. O. Pike, to the District Officer,
Kibondo District, December 30, 1952, 25143/34, Ref. no. 1095/34, TNA, Letter from the
District Commissioner, Kibondo District, to the Provincial Commissioner, Western
Province, February 4, 1953, 25143/36, TNA.
38. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, T. O. Pike, to the District Officer,
Kibondo District, December 30, 1952, December 30, 1952, 25143/34, Ref. no. 1095/34, TNA.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

151

Mihigo’s persistent defiance to be moved from his twenty acres of
land and his separate piece of land for his second wife led the District
Commissioner to order the Father Superior of Kakonko mission, Father
Harvey, to resubmit a new application for two separate plots, totalling the
required thirty-five acres of land. The new application took measures to
ensure that Mihogo’s land remained an enclave to safeguard his interests.39 Mihigo, mwami Wakili Ramadhani, and Father Superior reached
an agreement for Mihigo to stay on his twenty-acre land as long as he
lived and continue cultivating parts of the plots for himself. What was left
could be used by the middle school boys. The Father Superior was also
willing to pay Mihigo 100 Shillings as compensation for the removal of
his hut and that of his wife. Wakili Ramadhani ensured that the mission
build a new hut for Mihigo’s wife before the old one could be removed.
The five men cultivating patches of the land on Mihigo’s acres received a
modest compensation to leave the land, and Mihigo agreed not to lend
any more pieces of land to any person. The rationale was to let the land go
free after their death.40
In addition to Mihigo’s land, the people living on the land at the time
of the White Fathers’ application continued staying there until the next
rainy season. They agreed to leave their farms for a modest compensation,
and that the amount could be fixed in discussion and agreement by the
Father Superior, the Wakili Ramadhani, and the District Commissioner.41 Furthermore, the Provincial Commissioner urged the District
Commissioner to consult Wakili Ramadhani before the new plot could be
marked out for missionaries to build the school. The consultation would
allow the mtemi and his people time to discuss the land in question and
make their decision before arrangements could be made to move the
people. It would also give the people authority to discuss the nature of
compensation landowners would wish to receive to leave their homesteads
and farms.42
39. Ibid., Letter from the District Commissioner, Kibondo District, to the Provincial
Commissioner, Western Province, February 4, 1953, 25143/36, TNA.
40. Letter from Fr. J. Harvey, Kakonko Mission, to the District Commissioner,
Kibondo, January 22, 1953, 25143/37, TNA, Letter from the District Officer, Kibondo District, to the Provincial Commissioner, March 28, 1953, 25143/40A, Ref. no. 16/9/117,
TNA, Letter from the District Commissioner for Kibondo, G. A. Lusby to the Senior
Provincial Commissioner, June 19, 1953, 25143/50, Ref. no. 16/9/143, TNA.
41. Letter from the District Commissioner, Kibondo District, to the Provincial Commissioner, Western Province, February 4, 1953, 25143/36, Ref. no. 16/9/106, TNA.
42. Letter from the Provincial Commissioner, T. O. Pike, to the District Officer,
Kibondo District, December 30, 1952, 25143/34, Ref. no. 1095/34, TNA.

152

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

The resistance of the people at Kakonko and the response from the
district and provincial authorities indicate the influence of the colonized
on the deliberations of the missionaries and imperial authority. It shows,
to use Andrew Thompson’s expression, the way the colonized could
“strike back” and thus, notwithstanding the missionaries’ desire to “westernize” the people through the medium of education, the people’s refusal
to leave their land influenced both the missionaries and the imperial
authority to respond to their needs.43 Other scholars, notably Frederick
Cooper and Ann-Laura Stoler, have advanced this view to show the
influence of relations between the colonized people and the imperial
authority on British domestic history, politics, culture, identity, and
nationhood.44
“In Defense of Culture”: Communities, White Fathers, and Imperial
Authority at Mabamba Mission
Mabamba mission in Kibondo was another area where communities
and the native authority “struck back” against the missionaries’ interference
of the affairs with the people, calling for intervention from the district
authority. In the culture of Western Tanzania and, of course, in many
African communities, a man assumed the status of becoming a “husband”
and could be counted as relative in the family of his wife after he had fulfilled all the requirements, including paying the bridewealth. Paying the
bridewealth, writes Giblin, “defined the family [and bound] relations
between patrilineal and matrilineal relatives.”45 Therefore, as long as the
men paid no bride price, they could not be recognized as legal fathers (parents) of children; neither would they be respected by parents and relatives
of his wife. In a non-bride wealth union, emphasizes Raphael G. Abrahams, “the husband has no genetricial rights and only limited uxorial ones
over his wife. The children of such a marriage may be taken by right to live
with their mother’s people.”46

43. Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back, 3.
44. Frederick Cooper, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History (Berkley,
2005), 30-32; Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper, “Between Metropole and Colony:
Rethinking a Research Agenda,” in Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World,
ed. Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler (Berkley, 1997), 1–4.
45. James L. Giblin, “Divided Patriarchs in a Labour Migration Economy: Contextualizing Debate about Family and Gender in Colonial Njombe,” in Gender, Family and Work
in Tanzania, ed. Colin Creighton and C. K. Omari (Aldershot, 2000), 191.
46. Raphael G. Abrahams, The Peoples of Greater Unyamwezi, Tanzania (Nyamwezi,
Sukuma, Sumbwa, Kimbu, Konongo) (London, 1967), 44.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

153

On December 16, 1937, an unnamed man at Mabamba village took a
young girl as his wife without paying a bridewealth to her parents. The first
man who had paid the dowry for her, and who was entitled to marry her,
acted and the court ordered the girl to marry the first man. But the girl
refused to go to the first man, and instead she sought refuge at Mabamba
mission. The document does not reveal the reason behind the girl’s refusal
to accept the first man as her husband. But we learn that the two priests of
the Mabamba mission, Fathers Charles Orth and Gerard Oostendorp,
ordered the girl not to go to either man because she was too young to
become the mother of a family. The priests condemned the village headmen (watwale) and the clerk, charging that their judgement had been
unfair and that they should report the matter to the District Officer. Persuaded by the priests, the court took no action against the girl. The first
man, who had taken the girl without paying the bridewealth, was discontented with the missionaries’ manoeuvre to overrule the court. He appealed
to the chief, mwami Ruhaga, who settled the case by convicting the second
man of adultery and imprisoned him for evasion of payment of a fine.47
In the meantime, one of the village headmen, mtwale, put his thumb
mark on a written document at the direction of the two mission priests,
Fathers Orth and Oostendorp. This act was presumably meant to justify
the missionaries’ decision, in consultation with one of the village headmen,
to tell the girl not to be married to either of the two men. The two priests,
too, invited the court clerk (who was a resident in the village of Mabamba)
to the mission, where they questioned him behind closed doors and
demanded to see the court book. Again, the intention of the two priests to
call the court clerk to the mission with the court book was to give an
appearance that their decision that the girl stay in the mission was made
following approval from the court.48
The case of the girl reached the district authority because the headmen
and Africans working in the village court held that the missionaries had
interfered with their affairs. Even mtemi Ruhaga insisted that the priests
were increasingly threatening her position as their outmanoeuvring in the
girl’s case indicated that they had more authority than the chief. In
47. Letter from R. C. Greig, Assistant District Officer of Kasulu, to the District Officer, Kigoma, December 16, 1937, 180/C 32, TNA. Mwami was the title of chiefs in Buha,
Western Tanzania. Watwale were local leaders but they were subordinate to the Mwami.
Father Charles Orth died at Urwira at the age of 55 on May 29, 1944, and Father Gerard
Oostendorp died in the Netherlands at the age of 74 on January 5, 1983.
48. Letter from R. C. Greig, Assistant District Officer of Kasulu, to the District Officer, Kigoma, December 16, 1937, 180/C 32, TNA.

154

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

response to the complaints of the people and mtemi Ruhaga, the Assistant
District Officer, Mr. R. C. Greig, went to the Mabamba village to inquire
how the missionaries handled the matter. But the two priests denied all
accusations against them. They insisted that their decision was based on
the fact that the marriage of young girls had been outlawed by the Provincial Commissioner’s circular.49 The Assistant District Officer was irritated
by the White Fathers’ actions. He condemned the priests’ actions as “autocratic,” as they interfered with the “native” authority, and acted independently from the order of their bishop. He said,
This action of the White Fathers was in my view impulsive and tactless
and has made it impossible for the Native Authorities to know where
they are. I consider that the two fathers at Mabamba are exceptionally
autocratic and independent; the Bishop should be informed of their
action so that a further incident of this sort should not take place, and so
that the Native Authorities and Missions may know for the future what
is the definite ruling on the question of the marriage of young girls.50

Besides the girl’s case, the villagers of Mabamba accused the priests of
the mission of controlling the public market in the village. The villagers
complained to the district authority about the missionaries’ ban on the
practice of slaughtering animals under Islamic custom. The priests ordered
the local administration to move the market near Mabamba mission so
that they could supervise closely the market and its practices. The people
again complained to the district authority that missionaries also banned the
practice of opening the market by a drum. The use of a drum was embedded into the culture of the people of Western Tanzania. It was used as a
call to the people for chiefly meetings, wars, death, and communal gatherings including the market.51 Reasons for other restrictions are not stated in
the surviving document. But banning the slaughtering of meat under the
Islamic custom was meant to maintain the legitimacy of the White Fathers
over other religious institutions at Mabamba.
In response to people’s complaints against the two priests of the
Mabamba mission, R.C. Greig criticized the priests’ decision to move the
market near the mission. He called it another “mistake” and suggested “to
move them away from missions.”52 The Assistant District Commissioner
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. Letter from R. C. Greig, Assistant District Officer of Kasulu, to the District Officer, Kigoma, December 16, 1937, 180/C 32, TNA.
52. Ibid.

SALVATORY S. NYANTO

155

presented his report about the “autocracy and independence” of the priests
at Mabamba to the District Officer of Kigoma, J. Rooke Johnston, who, in
reply, wrote a letter to the vicar apostolic of Tanganyika, Bishop Sambeek,
outlining two major issues. First, he reported to the bishop that the two
priests had deliberately interfered with the native authority of Kibondo. By
undermining the native authority, their actions had undermined the
authority of the Provincial administration. Thus, by interfering with the
native authority, the two priests, according to the District officer, had committed an offense as stated in section 108 of the Penal code. The District
commissioner expressed his discontent with actions of the two priests, who
had not followed the normal procedures used by other priests of reporting
the matter directly to him or to the bishop who could forward it to the district officer.53 He banned the practice and called all missionaries to abide
by the orders, law, and regulations of the Provincial administration and
native authorities, writing:
There is only one Provincial Administration and the Native Courts are
subordinate to it. There must not be an “Imperium in imperio” in this district. I therefore ask you to impress on your Fathers that if they have any
complaint whatsoever, however slight it may be, that it is to their advantage
and indeed to our mutual advantage that they should report it either direct
to you or to the nearest Administrative Officer.54 [My own emphasis]

As a solution to the complaints of the people against the priests at
Mabamba mission, Bishop Sambeek acknowledged receipt of the District
Officer’s letter and was grateful to him for bringing to his attention the case
of his two priests at the Mabamba mission. The bishop supported the concern of the District Officer that the matter was serious, as it undermined
the administration of the colony (Tanganyika). The bishop promised to
take necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of that act in future.
One measure was to inform the Father Superior of Mabamba and all
priests in the vicariate of Tanganyika (Uha) that “such things shall no more
happen in the future.” The result, as the bishop stressed, would be in the
end “better understanding and cooperation with the administration of the
country [and would be] certainly to the benefit of the two parties.”55 The
bishop also informed the District Officer that he had already received a
53. Letter from J. Rooke Johnston, District Officer, Kigoma, to the Right Rev. Bishop
John van Sambeek, Ujiji, December 17, 1937, 180/C.32, TNA.
54. Letter from Rooke Johnston to the Right Rev. John van Sambeek, (n.d), 180/C.32,
TNA.
55. Letter from the Vicar Apostolic of Tanganyika, Bishop Jan van Sambeek, to J.
Rooke Johnson, the District Officer, Kigoma, (n.d), 180/C.32, TNA.

“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”

156

letter from the Father Superior of Mabamba about the case and that the
Superior, Fathers Orth, and Oostendorp, apologize for the gravity of their
actions. They promised that they would be more careful and prudent in
their manner of doing things in future.56 This again shows the way the colonized could “strike back” to influence both missionaries and the imperial
authority to act in accordance with their needs.57
Conclusion
Dissent in the missions of Kakonko and Mabamba provide glimpses
into the encounter between communities and missionaries in Western
Tanzania. Dissent became inevitable as missionary societies struggled for
more land to build schools and missions, which meant the people had to
surrender more plots of land for cultivation, grazing areas, and their homesteads too. More importantly, the struggle for land influenced division
among communities and followers along denominational lines. These divisions provide a clue to understanding that European missionary societies in
Western Tanzania did not agree among themselves, as each wanted to gain
support of the people in designated areas. These struggles for land and followers stimulated not only divisions among the people but also informed
the people that Catholic and Protestant missionaries to whom they looked
as model Christians did not come to terms with each other. It is most likely
that these divisions and struggles for land determined the nature of communities’ response to missionaries in some areas of Western Tanzania.
That communities opposed missionaries’ aims for more land indicates
the people did not wholeheartedly accept eviction from their farms, their
homesteads, and grazing areas. Instead, the persistent opposition called for
a “long conversation” between communities, missionaries, and imperial
authority. In some areas, the dialogue influenced missionaries and imperial
authority to change the plans of land use and surrendered the areas to the
people in areas the people determined not to leave. But some people used
dialogue as a platform to discuss with missionaries and the imperial
authority the terms of compensation before they would leave their land for
missionary establishments. Missionaries’ interference in the indigenous
marriage practices, market, and the practice of slaughtering animals under
Islamic regulations, eroded independence of communities, and aroused a
sense among the people that they were being monitored.

56. Ibid.
57. See Andrew Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back, 3.

Book Reviews
GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
‘Lasst Beides Wachsen bis zur Ernte’: Toleranz in der Geschichte des Christentums. By
Arnold Angenendt. (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag. 2018. Pp. 243. €17,90.
ISBN 978-3-402-13246-3.)
The book title is taken from Mt 13:30: “Let them grow together until harvest,”
which is part of Jesus’ parable of the weed and the wheat. Its thesis is: The biblical
command, Mt 13:30, is the Leitmotiv (p. 16) that dominates the concept and the
historical development of religious tolerance. This Scripture verse is the most significant contribution that Christianity has made to the coming into existence of
religious tolerance. This verse is “Jesus’ words of tolerance” (p. 16). As far as I can
see, no scholar before Angenendt has ever traced the use of Mt 13:30 through the
centuries. The book does not provide any biographical information about its author.
He was born in 1934, a priest of the Catholic Church in Germany, a church historian, professor emeritus of the University of Münster. He shows the impact of
Mt 13:30 up to the Second Vatican Council with its Declaration on Religious Liberty of 1965 (without, however, providing the exact source reference, which would
be no. 11).
Early examples of dealing with heresies show the use of Mt 13:30 by Irenaeus
of Lyon (ca. 200), Cyprian (died 258), Tertullian (ca. 220), Origen (died ca. 253).
In the Christian East, the verse was consistently utilized for non-violence and for
the prohibition of killing heretics, i.e. especially by John Chrysostom (died 407). In
the West, Augustine (died 430), too, worked with this verse in order to object to the
killing of heretics. In the Middle Ages, the verse still had its lasting impact in terms
of “do not pull up” (Mt 13:28–29)—during the time of the church-political struggles
between popes and emperors. Major figures are Anselm of Luttich (died ca. 1056),
Sigebert de Gembloux (died 1112), John of Salisbury (died 1180), Gerhoch von
Reichersberg (died 1169), Peter Abelard (died 1142), and Anselm von Havelberg
(died 1158). Even Gratian’s Decretum (the foundation of medieval church law; ca.
1130) incorporates Mt 13:30 in favor of patience and tolerance. “The outrageous
change” (Der unerhörte Umbruch, p. 99) in favor of killing heretics occurred with
Pope Gregory IX (died 1241) and Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) who advocated the
“pulling up” of the weed in order to justify the killing of heretics for the “spiritual
common good” (geistliches Allgemeinwohl, p. 101). The Protestant Reformation with
its main figures Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin is tackled all too briefly. The elder
Luther’s long sermon on Mt 13 (of 1545, Weimarer Ausgabe vol. 52: 828–839) is
overlooked. In it Luther pointed out that the Lord commanded that Christians shall
not eradicate heretics. There is one other, major lacuna in the display of the
157

158

BOOK REVIEWS

Wirkungsgeschichte of Mt 13:30: Johann Reuchlin. As I indicated in my book, Johann
Reuchlin (1455–1522) (Berlin/Boston, 2015), Reuchlin advised obedience to the
devise of Mt 13:30 that one should not pull up one with the other (see his Expert
Opinion for the emperor of 1510, Recommendation Whether to Confiscate, Destroy and
Burn All Jewish Books). In the Age of Enlightenment, Mt 13:30 was used by Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke, Pierre Bayle, Voltaire, Immanuel Kant—each in his own way.
Chapter VI covers the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Modern Religious Liberty). Flaws are found in the index of names where the given pages usually are
removed by two page numbers. Unfortunately, there is no list of abbreviations that
were used. Nevertheless, Angenendt’s study is to be highly recommended. Endnotes
are copious and comprise pages 185–212. The list of source material is given on nine
pages (pp. 213–221). The bibliography is gigantic (pp. 222–240). Instead of “Marin
Bucer” it should read Martin Bucer (p. 218). This book demonstrates that church
history is essentially the history of Bible interpretation.
Independent Researcher

FRANZ POSSET

Riforma del cattolicesimo? Le attività e le scelte di Pio X. Edited by Giuliano Brugnotto and Gianpaolo Romanato. [Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche:
Atti e documenti, Vol. 43.] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 2016.
Pp. XV, 600. €90.00. ISBN 978-88-209-9783-0.)
The volume comes with two CD-ROMs attached: “San Pio X—la sua
musica,” Coenobium Vocale, directed by Maria Dal Bianco (it contains fifteen
pieces of liturgical music written by the young Sarto); and “Concerto Sinfonico per
San Pio X,” Orchestra Regionale Filarmonia Veneta, directed by Marco Titotto,
Organist Giovanni Feltrin (Concert for Saint Pius X in the Cathedral of Treviso,
March 29, 2014).
This long book presents twenty-seven heterogeneous articles, in different ways
related to Giuseppe Sarto—Pope Pius X, elected on August 4, 1903, died August
20, 1914, later canonized by Pius XII, May 29, 1954. Edited texts were initially
presented at some conferences and meetings organized in 2013–2014 (the most relevant an international conference, with the same title of this volume, “Reform of
Catholicism? The activities and choices of Pius X,” held in Treviso and Venice, 24–
25 October 2013), on the occasion of the centenary year of the death of Pius X.
Contributions concern six fields in which the editors collected the Pius X’s pontificate (1903–1914), focused on a prominent question: What was Pius X’s reformist
attitude? According to Brugnotto and Romanato, historians on this topic would be
divided in two leanings: advocates of an innovative dimension of Pius X’s papacy
and proponents of a Catholic restorative perspective. The editors openly propose
the first thesis. However, following Carlo Fantappiè’s article (“Modernità” e “antimodernità” di Pio X, pp. 3–37), Brugnotto and Romanto explain that the innovative character of the reforms of Pius X is the outcome of a well-balanced encounter
between secular modernity and ecclesial anti-modernity: Pius X tried to incorporate
into the Roman Catholic Church some institutions of modern culture originating

BOOK REVIEWS

159

from the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. At the same time, he established a traditional magisterium, characterized by an anti-modern orientation.
It is impossible to summarize the contents of the six sections in which the book
is organized. They concern Pius X’s ecclesial reformist attitude (by the aforementioned Fantappiè, and Stefano Dal Santo, Stefano Chioatto, Gaetano Zito, Lucio
Bonora); the catechesis and liturgical reforms and the restoration to prominence of
Gregorian Chant (Giuseppe Biancardi, Bruna Fregni, Juan Javier Florse Arcas,
Paolo Magnani, Antonio Lovato, Michael Dubiaga, Bruno Fabio Pighin); the
reform of canon law (Giorgio Feliciani, Chiara Minelli, Giuliano Brugnotto,
Daniele Fregonese); Pius X’s Catholic social teaching and governance of Catholic
lay organizations (Marco Impagliazzo, Lino Cusinato, Giuseppe Adriano Rossi);
Church policies towards secular governments and peoples (Gianni La Bella,
Andreas Gottmann, Miroslaw Lenart, Umberto Castagnino Berlinghieri), and a
final section “Alia” (other issues), concerning the modernist crisis (Maurilio
Guasco), Sarto’s Venetian episcopacy before his pontifical election (Fabio Tonizzi),
holiness patterns in Sarto as a priest of Treviso dioceses (Ivano Sartor), Pius X’s attitude towards sciences (Quirino Bortolato), a review of new documents relating to
Pius X by the Vatican Secret Archives (Alejandro Mario Dieguez), the relations
with states (particularly France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy) and the beginning
of the First World War (Bernard Ardura), the itinerary of a saint (Cardinal José
Saraiva Martins). All these sections could be criticized for the absence of various
themes. Nevertheless, overall, they offer a range of in-depth studies of various kinds.
In general, we can discuss whether to assign a predominant dimension in Pius
X’s pontificate to the modernist crisis and its repression; editors are not of this idea.
But confining its investigation into a final miscellaneous section is unnecessarily
reductive and weak on the historiographical level. Regarding Pius X’s approach to
modernism, Guasco states, “[i]t would be a serious mistake to reduce the entire
pontificate of Pius X to the struggle against modernism. . . . But it is certainly not
only the fault of historians if this accentuation has occurred” (p. 468, my translation
from Italian). Then Guasco observes that the Holy See, when Pius X was alive and
later at the time of his canonization, highlighted the importance of the struggle
against modernism led by Pope Sarto (cf. Ibidem).
How to consider the answer that the numerous contributions offer, as a whole,
to the question underlying the book? In fact, Pius X himself considered himself a
pope of an integralist Catholic orientation (in his first encyclical he proclamed “the
duty . . . of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now
estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and
Christ to God”: Pius X, E supremi apostolatus, number 9, https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_04101903_e-supremi.html
accessed April 22, 2019), with no concessions of any kind to modernity. But he
resorted to some reforms of ecclesiastical institutions, with the aim of achieving a
full Christian restoration of society, through the Catholic Church, led by the pope.
In short, the fundamental interpretation proposed by this book does not persuade

160

BOOK REVIEWS

and leaves room for further discussion among scholars. Anyway, the many articles
published here can be considered a contribution, of various levels, to the knowledge
of specific aspects of the pontificate of Pius X, as well as an example of the continuing sympathy and veneration received by the pontiff of Venetian origin in some
sectors of contemporary Catholicism.
GIOVANNI VIAN

Ca’ Foscari University of Venice

ANCIENT
The Virgin in Song: Mary and the Poetry of Romanos the Melodist. By Thomas
Arentzen. (Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2017. Pp. xiii, 265.
$59.95. ISBN 978-0-8122-4907-1.)
In this outstanding study Thomas Arentzen masterfully transports the reader
to sixth-century Constantinople, a time and place marked by dramatic liturgical
development and immense growth in Marian piety. With a well-written text that
has poetical qualities, the author draws the reader in the sixth-century Constantinopolitan context and mindset; he enables the reader to engage with Romanos the
Melodist’s famous kontakia through the lenses and the psyche of a sixth-century
Constantinopolitan worshiper. Arentzen argues that “in the realm of Marian representation, Romanos deviates both from ascetic strands and from the Christological strand of earlier Marian texts” (p. 39). Rather, Romanos gives the Virgin Mary
a voice in her own right.
The structure of the book is clear and straightforward. Chapter 1 serves as an
introduction, while chapters 2–4 “pose a Virgin Mary at odds with what Romanos’
contemporaries would expect from a virgin” (p. 44), each chapter addressing the
person of the Virgin Mary in the annunciation, the nativity, and the crucifixion
respectively through the lenses of Romanos’ kontakia. The conclusion is followed
by appendix 1 that includes the author’s translation of Romanos’ Kontakion On the
Annunciation; appendix 2 that provides a catalogue of all hymns referred to in his
study, the notes to the chapters, an extensive and complete bibliography, and a very
helpful index. In chapter 1 Arentzen sets the background for his study; he introduces Romanos the Melodist and his work in the context of the liturgical life and
Marian devotion of sixth-century Constantinople and engages in a vivid description of the likely audience of the kontakia of Romanos. Chapter 2 is the most challenging and thought-provoking chapter of the book. Arentzen’s hermeneutic principle of the kontakion On the Annunciation is that “desire is fundamental to the way
he [Romanos] imagines Christian faith” (p. 49) and presents Mary not as “resisting
the world through ascetic virginity” but as embracing “the world through erotic virginity” (p. 51). “Mary does not appear as an ascetic virgin who shuns human sexual
relations, but as a maiden whose sexuality is translated into imagery” (p. 65).
Arentzen’s close reading of the text highlights the language of erotic tension
implicit in this work of Romanos which presents her not just as a vessel for the
Incarnation, not just as an ascetic model for ascetics and virgins but as a rational,

BOOK REVIEWS

161

attractive and fascinating woman in her own right, “in a liminal position where she
is yet neither entirely virginal not entirely married” (p. 86). Chapter 3 employs the
kontakia On the Nativity I and On the Nativity of the Virgin to present the Virgin
Mary through the paradox of her being both a virgin and a nursing mother. He
argues that Romanos’ intention in these kontakia is not christological; Romanos
places emphasis not on the kenosis of the Word but on Mary herself, exulting Mary
in her own right and presenting her as one who nourishes all Christians; she is the
“maternal provider” (p. 119). Chapter 4 engages with the kontakia On the Nativity
II and On Mary at the Cross where Romanos presents the Virgin Mary as an intercessor and intermediary. “Mary constitutes a dialogue between the divine and
human” (p. 159). In both kontakia it is the Virgin Mary who brings the divine and
the human in dialogue; she brings the news of the nativity to Adam and Even in
Hades in the first kontakion, she takes on the role of intermediary and intercessor
in the second one. Mary speaks with authority when addressing the humans; she
speaks with humility when addressing Christ.
Arentzen succeeds in bringing to the fore the theological value of the poetry
of Romanos the Melodist, challenging and in the same time enriching the accepted
scholarly view. This study is a necessary read not only for those who are interested
in the work of Romanos, but also for those engaged in Mariology, Christology,
hymnology, sixth-century liturgy and piety, and more generally the exciting period
of late antiquity.
STEFANOS ALEXOPOULOS

The Catholic University of America

MEDIEVAL
The Cult of St Thomas Becket in the Plantagenet World, c. 1170–c. 1220. Edited by
Paul Webster and Marie-Pierre Gelin. (Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, an
imprint of Boydell & Brewer. 2016. Pp. xviii, 252. $99.00. ISBN 978-178327-161-0.)
Sometimes medieval writers left us so little information about specific
medieval saints that we can study only their cults rather than the saints themselves.
Not so in the case of Thomas Becket. Because contemporaries recorded so much
about him shortly after his death and because he was such an important political as
well as religious figure, the scholarship on him abounds. As a result, study of the
saint has tended to overshadow scholarship on his enormously important cult. This
collection of articles, which includes pieces by two of the most important Becket
specialists now active in the field, shifts attention from the man to the early decades
of devotion to him.
The collection begins with a deeply researched and highly informative overview
of the cult by Paul Webster. It provides an excellent introduction to the subject of
the book along with an extensive account of the existing scholarship. One relatively
minor aspect of Webster’s piece that nonetheless stood out to me is his discussion

162

BOOK REVIEWS

of material culture related to the cult, including ampullae, badges, vestments, and
Limoges caskets. Collectively, these objects give an idea of the scope of the cult and
provide a sense of how it was spread in ways other than the spoken or written word.
The second article is also an overview, in this case by Anne Duggan, who brings to
bear her deep knowledge of the writings surrounding Becket. She discusses reasons,
including some quite subtle ones, why Becket, who was by no means the only bishop
murdered in the period, became such an important saint. Duggan provides an especially thoughtful discussion of the early liturgy related to the saint.
Subsequent essays are more specialized. Marie-Pierre Gelin provides a fascinating picture of how the monks of Christ Church Canterbury connected Becket,
largely an outsider to the community even as archbishop, into the traditions of their
church. In particular, they sought to tie Becket to Dunstan and Alphege, two of his
predecessors who had previously been the two major saints of the community. The
monks did so not only by emphasizing the similarities of Becket to his precursors,
especially Alphege, who had been murdered by the Danes, but also by treating
Dunstan and Alphege as visual prefigurations of Becket in the depictions of them
in stained glass windows. Elma Brenner discusses the surprisingly large number of
leper houses in Normandy dedicated to Becket, including some founded or
refounded by men who had been foes of the saint in his lifetime, most notably
Gilbert Foliot and Henry II himself. Michael Staunton, who has written so ably on
the hagiographical works on Becket, systematically discusses the appearance of
Becket in chronicles and other writings. Colette Bowie and José Manuel Cerda
argue that after Henry II embraced the cult of his former friend, then enemy, his
daughters, Matilda and Leonor, had a crucial role in spreading the cult to the lands
of their husbands, Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony and King Alfonso VIII of
Castile. Webster, in a second article, compares the Becket controversy to John’s
dispute with Innocent III over the election of Stephen Langton and shows the
impact of the Becket controversy on the later dispute. Alyce A. Jordan uses postcolonial theory and extensive prosopographical work to analyze windows dedicated
to Becket at Angers and Coutances, and though I was not convinced by all her specific arguments, I found her methodology intriguing. Overall, the collection provides a wealth of interesting information and ideas about the cult of St. Thomas
Becket in its first half century.
HUGH THOMAS

University of Miami

EARLY MODERN EUROPEAN
Women, Art, and Observant Franciscan Piety: Caterina Vigri and the Poor Clares in
Early Modern Ferrara. By Kathleen G. Arthur. [Visual and Material Culture,
1300–1700.] (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 2018. Pp. 244.
€99.00. ISBN 978-9-46-298433-2.)
Although Caterina Vigri (1413–1463) is known as St. Catherine of Bologna,
she actually spent most of her life in nearby Ferrara. Caterina spent the majority of

BOOK REVIEWS

163

her time there at the community of Corpus Domini—then known as Corpus
Christi. This Clarissan, noted as a great writer, preacher, and mystic of the quattrocento, was also a visual artist. It is this dimension of her œuvre that Kathleen Arthur
treats in Women, Art, and Observant Franciscan Piety: Caterina Vigri and the Poor
Clares in Early Modern Ferrara. Although this monograph does add to our understanding of Caterina’s individual works, its main contribution is an exploration of
Corpus Christi as a community. By reconstructing the visual environment and
material culture of this foundation, Arthur reveals its importance to both Clarissan
Observant Reform and Ferrarese civic life writ large.
Arthur’s book consists of five chapters that trace the development of Corpus
Christi from c. 1410–1520. Chapter One uses an inventory produced in 1426 to
show the rich cache of ecclesiastical items curated by the initial inhabitants of the
house, though they were only a small group of unaffiliated pinzochere. Chapter Two
traces the further building of the foundation’s “public face,” as it grew considerably
upon becoming Clarissan in 1431. Arthur reveals how its Observant identity was
built up at the same time, contrasting Corpus Christi’s devotional décor (particularly its eucharistically-themed altarpieces) with that of the more “courtly” Urbanist
community of San Guglielmo.
Chapters Three and Four turn to the work of Caterina Vigri, showing the
strong Franciscan visual elements present in her autobiography (The Sette armi spirituali) as well as within the images present in her illustrated breviary. Finally,
Chapter Five traces the patronage of the Este duchesses at Corpus Christi, as they
used the house to a place of retreat during the course of the sixteenth century and
respected the community so much that they chose to be buried there.
Arthur accomplishes her stated aim with this book which was to “rediscover”
the “idiosyncratic” and “expressive” meanings of nuns’ artistic work, images that
some still call “naïve.” For though it has been twenty years since Jeffrey Hamburger’s treatment of creativity in German convents, scholars of Italy have yet to
fully explore the ways that subalpine cloistered women shaped their aesthetic
worlds. Additionally, Arthur has done a laudable job in reintegrating nuns’ images
into the truly sophisticated “social history” of Clarissan communal life in the
Emilia-Romagna.
Arthur used a variety of fondi for research. Fuller exploration of the materials at
both Corpus Domini Bologna and Ferrara is welcome, as their presence in the midst
of active religious communities has often limited previous scholarly analyses. The
nineteenth-century dispersion of religious objects from Ferrara makes Arthur’s
reconstruction of the physical convent environment particularly useful. The integration of religious materials with the secular Este archives, now in Modena, adds depth.
There are a few minor issues with the book as constructed. Chapter Two’s
complex discussion of the monastery’s architectural development would have been
enhanced with a full modern plan included at the outset. As it stands, the different
images of the various facades are somewhat confusing, even if one has been to the

164

BOOK REVIEWS

house before. An additional appendix providing an Este family tree would also have
been useful given the numerous dynastical relationships discussed. One of the only
errors in terminology occurs on page 34 where a male Franciscan is referred to as a
monk rather than a friar.
Arthur’s book, though brief, is excellent. The prosopographical information in
the Appendix 2 will be of particular use for those attempting further research in the
region. The work will also be relevant to those interested in Ferrarese Renaissance
art, Clarissan institutional history, or Franciscan Observantism. Finally, scholars of
female contributions to premodern material culture should find it an engaging read.
Providence, Rhode Island

KATE BUSH

The Republic of Arabic Letters: Islam and the European Enlightenment. By Alexander
Bevilacqua (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
2018. Pp. xviii, 340. $35.00. ISBN 9780674975927.)
A decade before the revelation of his calling as he mused amidst the ruins of
the Capitol in Rome, Edward Gibbon dreamed of studying Arabic. The “childish
fancy” was banished by his unimaginative Oxford tutor. But it might easily have
been otherwise. The books of Islamic history which captivated the teenaged
Gibbon were the product of a “Republic of Arabic Letters.” For more than a century, scholars and patrons from Paris to Oxford, Leiden to Rome, had stocked
libraries with Arabic, Persian, and Turkish manuscripts. In Italy, Lodovico Marracci, a clerk regular in the Order of the Mother of God, had translated the Qur’an
into Latin, while the English divine Edward Pococke uncovered the early history
of the Arabs. With his Bibliothèque Orientale the Frenchman Barthélemy d’Herbelot bequeathed Europeans an early version of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Such
scholarly feats inspired the eighteenth-century authors who were Gibbon’s entrée
to “Mahomet and his Saracens”: the impecunious Simon Ockley, who finished his
history of the Muslim conquests in a debtors’ prison, and the solicitor George Sale,
translator of the English Qur’an.
Alexander Bevilacqua’s The Republic of Arabic Letters: Islam and the European
Enlightenment brings these and others of the Republic’s citizens to life with verve,
insight, and erudition. Parts of the story have been told before, but typically in
smaller-scale works on individual pioneers or national cultures; Bevilacqua’s narrative takes a bird’s eye view. The tale of scholars at their desks is skilfully interwoven
with a subplot about the journeys of their books. Chapter 1 brilliantly evokes the
world of Istanbul and its booksellers. Later, we learn how manuscripts brought
serendipitously to Roman libraries were exploited by Marracci for his commentary
on the Qur’an and how in Utrecht Adriaan Reland used Malay and Javanese
Qur’an translations acquired thanks to the “global reach of the Dutch Republic” (p.
84). Readers of this journal will appreciate Bevilacqua’s efforts to include “both
Catholic and Protestant contributions” (p. 15), doing justice to Catholic scholars’
such as Marracci’s and d’Herbelot’s indispensable achievements.

BOOK REVIEWS

165

Moreover, Bevilacqua’s account of Islam and the Enlightenment is an important corrective to earlier versions. Enlightenment orientalists are typically cast as
radicals who developed novel, more sympathetic depictions of the Prophet and his
religion, or, at the least, adapted earlier scholarship to new polemical ends. Such
narratives often embody an assumption that intellectually honest and cool-headed
work on Islam simply could not have been produced by orthodox Christian writers.
Bevilacqua argues convincingly that this is wrong. Montesquieu, Voltaire, and
Gibbon appear here, not as innovators, but as inheritors of a much older scholarly
tradition. Nor was this simply a case of philosophical historians mining the data
accumulated by erudite but uncritical antiquarians. The shift in the “normative evaluation of Islam” (p. 106), central to the Enlightenment’s more charitable interpretation of Muhammad and his followers, had occurred at least a century earlier.
How and why had this change come about? One answer picks up a hint
dropped by Machiavelli in the 1530s, then developed by Henry Stubbe in the seventeenth century, and George Sale in the “Preliminary Discourse” to his Qur’an.
Muhammad came to be conceived no longer as a “false prophet,” but as a skilled
political legislator. If his religion and its extraordinarily rapid diffusion could be
explained purely in terms of secular power, bracketed off from real theology, then
Muslim history was a safe topic for a Christian believer. Likewise, many of the early
modern scholars who addressed Islam relied on some idea of comparison. Since
antiquity, Christians had recognized the value of studying aspects of pagan history
and culture. As “wise Muslims” (p. 106) were similarly imagined, an emerging idea
of Islamic civilization became an acceptable field of theologically neutralized
enquiry. Family resemblances between Islam and Christianity became increasingly
apparent to theologians and scholars across post-Reformation Europe as they
probed more deeply into the former while arguing over the essence of the latter.
These explanations yield many new and valuable insights as they unfold
through a series of perceptive close readings. But they raise further questions about
the Enlightenment of the book’s subtitle. If the “new attitude” toward “the peoples
and traditions of Islam” (p. 1) was a product of the seventeenth, even the sixteenth
century, then why retain the concept? Bevilacqua comes close to abandoning it,
reminding us that the Enlightenment is a “more humble thing” than the beast we
have come to know (p. 198). But it is hard to banish altogether. Might it, then, be
stretched backwards? Possibly, but that the work of the book’s seventeenth-century
protagonists had “little to do with their personal beliefs about Christianity” (p. 197)
seems implausible, given what we have learned about Marracci’s Qur’an translation
being “a very learned extension of his order’s evangelical impulse” (p. 48).
In the end, if The Republic of Arabic Letters tells as series of interlocking stories
about change, then it reveals a deeper, less developed one about continuity. This is
the consequence of the book’s admirable attempt to square the history of scholarship with the history of ideas. But the former moves slowly; if the Republic of
Arabic Letters is sometimes out of sync with the European Enlightenment then
that is perhaps because what some Europeans “knew” about Islam only ever

166

BOOK REVIEWS

mapped on imprecisely to how others “viewed” Muslims. The integration of the
two perspectives is, nevertheless, important, and genuinely to be commended. To
his great credit, Bevilacqua has reconstructed “a moment of intercultural possibility” (p. 203) with remarkable learning and empathy; the book is a reminder, to a
world that surely needs it, of the value of scholarship for achieving not only knowledge but understanding.
SIMON MILLS

Newcastle University

LATE MODERN EUROPEAN
The Catholic Church and the Campaign for Emancipation in Ireland and England. By
Ambrose Macaulay. (Dublin: Four Courts Press. Distributed by International
Specialized Book Services, Portland, OR. 2016. Pp. 416. $74.50. ISBN 9781-84682-600-9.)
It cannot be said that the Irish Catholic campaign for ‘Emancipation’ has been
ignored by historians. James A. Reynold’s pioneering analysis of the mass movement that led to the eligibility of Irish Catholics to sit in the Westminster Parliament (Yale University Press, 1954) was supplemented by Fergus O’Farrell’s study
of the local sources of O’Connellite support during the 1820s (Dublin, 1984). Nor
has the life of Daniel O’Connell, the campaign’s leader, been neglected. Oliver
MacDonagh’s magisterial two-volume biography (London, 1988, 1989) of the
‘Liberator,’ as O’Connell was quickly dubbed, can be set alongside the more recent
two-volume study by Patrick Geoghegan (Dublin, 2008, 2010) and, easily overlooked, a fine short piece by Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh in the Dictionary of Irish Biography (Cambridge, 2010). Is there really anything left to be said?
To that question Ambrose Macaulay has delivered a resounding yes, and he
has produced a well-documented volume to be placed together with the earlier
authorities. In doing so, Macaulay—a parish priest in the Diocese of Down and
Connor and author of a number of well-received biographies of leading Catholic
clergymen—highlights probably the most bizarre outcome of the century of Penal
Laws to which Irish Catholics and the Irish Catholic Church were subjected. As
the dismantling of the Penal Laws proceeded fitfully from the 1770s on, the
Catholic Church that finally emerged into the daylight was not only unbroken but
largely unbowed; indeed, there were those who claimed that the Church was in fact
strengthened by its time in the darkness of the Penal era. By 1800 when the Penal
curtain was finally cast aside, the Irish Catholic Church was revealed to be entirely
beyond the control of the British government. At that time in every country in
Europe—Protestant or Catholic—the state demanded and received a say, great or
small, in the appointment of bishops, and all states aspired to oversight of episcopal
correspondence. In some states, the clergy were in receipt of government pay.
However, in Ireland the Catholic Church was beyond the reach of a British government, which, gallingly, had no role in Catholic episcopal appointments, no
power to scrutinize episcopal correspondence, and no control over the clergy’s pay.

BOOK REVIEWS

167

The resolution of this matter, and of other issues including appropriate oaths to be
taken by Catholics to avail of the new post-Penal Laws dispensation, and the question of state pay for Catholic clergy forms the substance of Macaulay’s study.
To accompany the repeal of the Penal Laws, successive British governments
insisted on ‘insurance’ in the form of oaths denouncing alleged Catholic beliefs—
inter alia, that it was fine to murder a Protestant Prince, and that no faith need be
kept with heretics—and a say in episcopal appointments as well as some oversight
of Vatican-Ireland correspondence. As a result Catholic bishops in both Ireland and
in Britain had no option but to become fully involved in a campaign to maintain
their independence from the Protestant state, as well as safeguard their position with
respect to the Catholic laity only too willing to challenge episcopal authority. Utilizing an enormous array of documentation, much of it from the Vatican Archives
but also including diocesan archives throughout Britain and Ireland, Macaulay offers
an authoritative guide through the Irish bishops’ efforts to be accommodating
toward the British government while at the same time remaining beyond its control.
He tells this story in a masterful way, and for those interested in episcopal diplomacy
(and rancor) this study has much to offer. John Milner, vicar apostolic of the Midland District and an ‘indomitable controversialist’ (p. 355) and self-appointed
scourge of any backsliding on episcopal independence, inevitably figures large in this
account, but so too does Cardinal Ercole Consalvi, a key Vatican diplomat during
the Napoleonic wars who had dealings with Lord Castlereagh, the Irish-born
British foreign secretary. There were furious rows between the Irish and English
bishops as to the proper way forward: “What a pity the Irish will not be quiet” (p.
257) sighed Dr. Poynter, vicar-apostolic of the London District, and one who was
frequently the target of Milner’s abuse. In the end the Catholic bishops triumphed.
When Catholic emancipation was conceded in 1829 there was no mention of the
state’s involvement in episcopal appointments, or anything else.
University of Aberdeen (Emeritus)

THOMAS BARTLETT

Nunzio in una terra di frontiera: Achille Ratti, poi Pio XI in Polonia (1918–1921) =
Nuncjusz na ziemiach pogranicza: Achilles Ratti, późniejszy Pius XI, w Polsce
(1918–1921). Edited by Quirino Alessandro Bortolato and Mirosław Lenart.
[Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche—Atti e Documenti 47. Archiwum
Państwowe w Opolu—Opera Extraordinaria 10.] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 2017. Pp. 521. €25.00. ISBN 978-1-88-587615-3.)
Pope Pius XI (reigning 1922–1939) is known as the interwar pope and held
the Church’s highest position during one of the most politically fraught periods of
the modern era. Italy experienced a rise in fascism but not before Ratti had concluded an agreement with Italy in 1929 ending the long stalemate existing since the
Risorgimento. The rise of communism in Russia produced hardships for Pius’
Church as did the great political turmoil in Mexico, which often expressed itself as
openly anticlerical, in the form of murders. The 1930s featured the rise of Nazism
and along with it, Antisemitism. But Ratti had important training for such events

168

BOOK REVIEWS

beginning in the summer of 1918 when he was appointed papal nuncio in Poland,
a position he held until 1921. It was a critical time for Poland and its eventual independence. He befriended Marshall Jozef Piłsudski (explored in an interesting and
important contribution by Marek Kornat), but many Polish clergy distrusted him,
an aspect of his mission that is slightly overlooked in this otherwise fine collaborative work. The decision by Polish and Italian scholars to devote a monograph to this
period in Ratti’s life was a good one. The thirteen articles written or translated into
both Polish and Italian address this period in Ratti’s career as it relates to Poland
and his mission. For example, there is Tadeusz Krawcyzk’s lengthy and comprehensive article on the attitude of Polish society to Ratti, even if much of the work
deals with the attitudes of the various spheres of the Polish Church (as opposed to
society as such). As well, Piotr Gorecki offers an informative synthesis from a variety of sources about Ratti’s role in Silesia during his office of nuncio.
On the topic of sources, this work is strong in its use of original materials,
mainly in the form of official papal writings. At least half of the contributions
employ such first-hand documents in a meaningful way. For example, Dominik
Zamiatala discusses the views of Ratti found in journals and newspapers. In terms
of the secondary literature, with a few exceptions, most authors confine themselves
to Italian sources in the case of Italian scholars and Polish ones for the Polish writers, which, at times, results in dated bibliographies, and thus a dated story line, such
as Bernard Ardura’s opening overview chapter. Surprisingly, this book lacks the
recently published (2013) work by Emma Fattorini, Diplomazia senza eserciti: le
relazioni internazionali della chiesa di Pio XI, which is devoted to diplomacy between
the wars and employs Ratti’s letters. This omission is emblematic of the book’s
weakness more broadly: there is no real attempt by many of the writers to engage
with the historiography or the larger, important events mentioned at the outset of
this review. Quirino Bortolato’s chapter on Ratti, the alpinist, and Jan Kopiec’s
contribution on the reintroduction of the papal nunciature in Poland are both very
interesting but based largely on the recently published secondary literature, which
appear to cover these topics more thoroughly. In Gianni Venditti’s case, his previously published book-length work on Ratti’s diary is whittled down to just over
seven pages of summary on his feelings on the resurrection of Poland.
The most interesting contributions deal with Ratti’s experience in Poland and
how it affected or impinged upon larger areas, such as the post-World War I
Church, as in the case of the brief chapter by Gianpaolo Romanato, or the Polish
Church, discussed by Miroslav Lenart, though Ratti is not always present in his
chapter. No one addresses in much detail how this period informed the Concordat
of 1925, Ratti’s pontificate, his anti-imperialist views, or his attitudes toward communism. There are other interesting questions related to Ratti’s tenure in Poland
that might have been addressed. For example, why was someone so inexperienced
in political affairs chosen to go to Poland?
Instead of chapters devoted to these pertinent questions, four or so have little
in common with Ratti and his nunciature, which lessen somewhat the potential

BOOK REVIEWS

169

impact of the work and betray its title. In addition to the above-mentioned work
by Lenart, Slawomir Marchel offers an interesting chapter on the Polish lobby in
the Vatican, though with little interaction with Ratti or his career. Barbara Sypko’s
work on the Polish saint Andrea Bobolo, a fascinating figure, is justified by Ratti’s
proclivity to canonize and beatify models of the Catholic faith, but unrelated to
Ratti’s nunciature. Blazej Kurowski’s history of the Santa Anna convent is included
because Ratti, who is barely mentioned, sojourned there very briefly in 1920.
Nonetheless, Nunzio in una terra di frontiera is an informative collaborative effort,
especially for those interested in disparate aspects of the Polish church and society
during and around the time of Ratti’s nunciature. Students of the modern papacy
and the Catholic Church will also benefit from this work, especially for its use of
original sources.
Adam Mickiewicz University and the Institute of
International Relations and Diplomacy, Moscow

CHRISTOPHER KORTEN

Böhmisches. Allzu Böhmisches? Verwischte Lebensbilder im Südwesten, herausgegeben
von der Ackermann-Gemeinde der Diözese Rottenburg-Stuttgart und der
Erzdiözese Freiburg. By Kateřina Kovačková. (Münster: Aschendorff. 2018.
Pp. 384 pp. €24,80. ISBN 978-3-402-13296-8.)
The title needs some unpacking. “Bohemian, all too Bohemian” is not a reference to an unconventional lifestyle but to a geographical term designating the central European region of Bohemia. More recently the territory was called Czechoslovakia, and since 1993 it is the Czech Republic. Verwischte Lebensbilder may be
translated with “sketchy, smeared, smudged, or blurred, biographies.” These
German speaking people lived in that region for centuries in what (only since the
beginning of the twentieth century) was called Sudentenland. Südwesten is a reference to the southwestern corner of present-day Germany, the State of BadenWürttemberg, where many of the Heimatvertriebene (“those chased from their
homeland”) were assigned for resettlement after World War II.
We are dealing with twenty biographical sketches of Catholic ethnic Germans
who were born in Bohemia before or during World War II and the Nazi terror
regime, but grew old in southwestern Germany after the war. They were chased
from their homeland in revenge for the atrocities committed by the Germans in
Hitler’s Third Reich. Their stories represent the fate of ca. 2,5 million people. The
subtitle explains that the book editor is Ackermann-Gemeinde, a West-German,
Catholic association to which the contributors belong. Ackermann is actually a literary figure: Der Ackermann aus Böhmen (German for “The Ploughman from
Bohemia”) is a work by Johannes von Tepl, written around 1400. The subtitle
reveals, furthermore, that these exiled German Catholics had found a spiritual
home in the Archdiocese of Freiburg and in the Diocese of Rottenburg-Stuttgart,
as they were supported by local priests such as Father Heinrich Magnani [1899–
1979] (p. 147) or friars of the Augustinian Order who themselves were Heimatvertriebene (p. 153f). For the historian it is always very difficult to assess the role of

170

BOOK REVIEWS

faith in horrible life situations, but it can be done as these autobiographical sources
of witnesses of that time (Zeitzeugen) demonstrate.
It is quite remarkable that it is a Czech researcher (born in 1981) who is presenting these life stories of ordinary Germans. The book is an important contribution of oral history to Zeitgeschichte and, more specifically, to a neglected element
of central European Catholic church history. Most helpful to the uninitiated reader
are the map of Bohemia (pp. 16/17), the glossary (pp. 265–379) and the familiar
and not so familiar Nazi-abbreviations (p. 381). Within the glossary the most
important name is Beneš (German: Benesch), the Czech president in 1935, who
was responsible for the postwar “evacuation” (preferred Czech term, although a
euphemism), or “forced emigration” (German: Vertreibung) of ethnic Germans.
The so-called Beneš-Decrees allowed the exiling of the Germans without compensation for their loss of homes, farms, or businesses. They also provided impunity for
everybody who had tortured or murdered Germans. The word Němec is the Czech
designation for a German. Any German in Bohemia had to wear a white badge on
their arm (German: Armbinde) with the letter ‘N’ in black that designated them as
“guilty German” whom one could spit at.
The German Heimatvertriebene refused to be called “refugees” because they
did not “flee” but were chased out. They survived by clinging to their Catholic faith
(although some committed suicide, often women, when “the Russians were
coming” [p. 185]). Usually, the exiled were not told about the destination to which
they were being deported in windowless cattle wagons (Viehwaggons [p. 191]). The
memoirs also testify to the successful rebuilding of their lives from scratch, after
denazification, always happy to have been relocated to the American Occupation
Zone in western Germany. Any historian of recent general European history or
anyone interested in World War II and its aftermath will benefit from studying the
reports of these Bohemian Catholic eye witnesses and their survival.
FRANZ POSSET

Independent Researcher

AMERICAN
The Catholic Church in Southwest Iowa. By Steven M. Avella. (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press. 2018. Pp. xxvi, 433. $24.95. ISBN 978-0-88146-4471-3.)
If you have never been to Iowa, Steven Avella can take you there, through
the lens of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century. His first chapter begins
with Jacques Marquette in 1673 and extends with nineteenth-century and early
twentieth-century developments in Catholic life and institutions in Southwest
Iowa up to the establishment of the diocese of Des Moines in 1911. The book’s
focus is the history of the diocese, primarily from the point of view of the development of its institutions—the office of bishop, leading parishes and pastors,
educational facilities, and other Catholic institutions (hospitals, academies,
orphanages, charitable organizations, etc.). Except for the first, each chapter is

BOOK REVIEWS

171

organized chronologically on the episcopacy of each successive Des Moines
bishop—Austin Dowling (1912–1919), Thomas W. Drumm (1919–1933),
Gerald T. Bergen 1934–1948, Edward C. Daly, O.P. (1948–1964), Maurice J.
Dingman (1968–1992). Only one bishop does not rate a separate chapter, viz.,
George J. Biskup (1965–1967). He was bishop for only two years, before being
whisked away to Indianapolis to be the coadjutor archbishop there. Dingman
rates three chapters because of the length and the tumultuous times of his episcopacy—the implementation of Vatican Council II, the massive social changes
that affected America and the American Church, and the effects of the Papal
Visit of Pope John Paul II in October of 1979. Avella closes the book in 1992
with the end of Dingman’s episcopacy. The next three bishops’ terms require the
passage of time to have some perspective on their tenures. Avella also feels that
new cultural and social realities set in around the late 1980s, with American society and the American Church becoming polarized on a series of issues, a phenomenon also called the “culture wars.” For example, Avella admits that clerical
sexual abuse of minors existed during part of the period of his study; however,
knowledge of this scandal did not become widely known until after 1992 (only
one case was made public in 1988 when some of the first Des Moines diocesan
policies were put in place regarding the issue).
Doing the history of a diocese is a very difficult task. There is the passage of
time, numerous persons interacting with one another (often as complicated as a
Russian novel), the establishment of institutions and their growth or diminishment, various social groups, the effects of civil society and of transnational ecclesiastical regulations on the local community. It is challenging to keep all these
moving parts co-ordinated and to make sense of it all. This complex task is often
given to well-meaning non-professional historians or by a “committee” of amateur
writers. What often results is the reader becoming lost in an endless mishmash of
facts, names, and dates. On the contrary, Avella shows his professional expertise by
building a narrative of growth and development from one episcopal leader to the
next. He is also keen on giving the reader context—for example, how the great
Depression had a deleterious effect on Church life. He follows the theme of the
urban ecclesiastical experience versus the rural one from one period to another,
adding the development of the suburban parish and the decline of the urban parish
in the post-World War II period. But his great strength is his ability to succinctly
read the personality of bishops and priests especially. He summarizes Bishop Daly
as “a capable, if sometime colorless, church bureaucrat . . . he knew how to make
the machinery of church life work. . . . Daly’s introverted and staid personality was
a contrast with the gregarious Bergan (Daly’s predecessor).” Avella’s assessments
are always balanced and fair, but there is no hagiography here.
At the outset, Avella introduces a thesis he interjects throughout the book,
namely, that the Catholic Church in Southwest Iowa had an influence on its general environment, the engagement of the sacred and the secular. But Catholics in
the region were always a small minority—beginning at 5 percent of the population
in 1912, 8 percent in 1950, and rising to 14 percent in 1990. His thesis is difficult

172

BOOK REVIEWS

to measure and is never convincing. What seems to be the fact is that movements
in society strongly influenced the directions and the engagements of the Church,
whether it was the Great Depression, World War II, or the 1960s.
Finally, I would have liked to see Avella engaged more fully in analyzing his
data more, something he does well in some fleeting moments of his text. Undoubtedly, he has the extremely difficult task of mapping out for the first time a narrative
of the history of the diocese of Des Moines. As such, his work is a ground-breaking
contribution not only to the Church in Southwest Iowa, but a significant addition
to the historiography of the American Catholic Church.
Poor Clare Monastery of San Damiano
Fort Myers Beach, Florida

MICHAEL MCNALLY

With All Gentleness: A Life of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos, CSsR. By Carl W.
Hoegerl, C.Ss.R. (New Orleans: Redemptorists Seelos Center. 2018. Pp. xx,
554. ISBN 978-0-76482800-3.)
As a young man, Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos (1819–1867) discerned his
vocation to become a Redemptorist missionary for German immigrants in North
America. In 1843, he left his home in the foothills of the Bavarian Alps and began
his journey to America, where he was soon received into the Congregation of the
Most Holy Redeemer in Baltimore. After his ordination in December 1844, he was
sent to St. Philomena, the German immigrant parish in Pittsburgh where, in addition to parish duties, he was also the director of novices. Later he was sent to
parishes in Baltimore, Annapolis, and Cumberland, Maryland. Most of the time he
was also novice director or the prefect and teacher of Redemptorist students
preparing for the priesthood. For three years, Seelos was the head of the Parish
Mission Band. Finally, he was called to New Orleans where he predicted that he
would stay “‘For a year and then I will die of yellow fever,’ which is exactly what
happened” (p. 443). Seelos died on October 4, 1867, and was beatified at St. Peter’s
in Rome on April 9, 2000.
Carol W. Hoegerl’s biography of Seelos is a very readable compilation of his
extensive work on the documentation required for beatification, which includes
both testimonies from people who knew the subject in person and historical evidence of a life of holiness. Hoegerl allows Seelos to speak directly to the reader
through numerous quotations from his 201 extant letters.
Seelos’s ministry was marked with kindness and gentleness to all. “Whites and
blacks, German and English, members of the community and outsiders, religious
and lay people, ladies of quality or poor nuns, sick and poor” (p. 322)—no one was
turned away. Through this extraordinary attentiveness to others—without exception—Seelos achieved holiness in the ordinary circumstances of life. His shortcomings and occasional lack of good judgment are not glossed over in this biography,
which makes Seelos even more approachable for the twenty-first-century reader.

BOOK REVIEWS

173

Seelos did not like America and would have never chosen to go there on his
own. Nevertheless, he wrote, “With all my imagination and enthusiasm, I have
embraced this dullness and ordinariness of America. The poverty and neglect of the
greatest portion of the Germans, instruction of their children, and with time, even
more, that of the blacks, since they are here, provide superabundant material to lay
claim to all the activity of a priest who wants to dedicate himself fully to the wellbeing of his neighbor” (p. 147).
Although Seelos became an American citizen in 1852, he never mastered the
English language. When he preached in his broken English, however, he made a
deep impression on his listeners because he spoke to their hearts with simple words
that explained for them the Word of God.
For a world struggling to welcome, understand, and accept peoples of every
land, culture, language, or belief, this biography of Blessed Francis Xavier Seelos
fills a distinct need by showing us how this could be done, not only in the nineteenth century, but also in the twenty-first.
The book is arranged chronologically with numerous illustrations and pertinent subheads in each chapter. The description of the beatification process given in
Appendix B provides essential information for this work and its sources and, while
the book lacks an index, the lists of people, places, and institutes in the life of Seelos
are very helpful.
Mankato, Minnesota

MARY ANN KUTTNER, S.S.N.D.

Converting the Rosebud: Catholic Mission and the Lakotas, 1886–1916. By Harvey
Markowitz. [The Civilization of the American Indian, Volume 277.]
(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2018. Pp. xvi, 303. $34.95. ISBN
978-0-8061-5985-0.)
Popularly known as “Sioux,” the Lakota today live on nine reservations in
South Dakota and several others in Canada and the United States. The Sicangu
division (formerly referred to as the “Brulé”) occupy the Rosebud Reservation. This
study addresses a range of subjects that affected these people and the Indian world
as a whole in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Chapters cover “Federal-Indian relations,” Grant’s “peace policy,” Bishop
Marty’s stewardship of the Dakota Territory, his interaction with the controversial
Father Francis Craft, and his enlisting German-born nuns and priests to staff St.
Francis Mission. Apart from the challenging terrain upon which the people were
scattered, efforts to establish Church presence at Rosebud were hampered by “acts
of God,” anti-Catholic sentiments harbored by government officials, lack of funds,
and the resistance of some to the missionary message.
Clergy, agents, and diverse Lakota citizens (notably Spotted Tail) come to life
via diary accounts and government documents. Concluding chapters report the

174

BOOK REVIEWS

interaction of diverse actors during a turbulent time of culture-contact. Readers
might negatively interpret church initiatives as “cultural imperialism” or, more positively, a form of “interfaith dialogue” apropos conditions of the time. Accounts
substantiate these conflicting perceptions—their legacy being an Indian population
that today both sustains Christian practice and avoids it.
That legacy reveals an array of religious practitioners among contemporary
Rosebud Lakota. One now finds conventional Catholics, non “churchgoers,” those
who have grafted Christian thought onto native antecedents, and those who consider themselves “pipe carriers” (i.e., persons identifying with a pre-reservation religious identity). In short, Markowitz presents an early-reservation milieu that was
the seedbed of contending religious perspectives still present a century later.
The author surprisingly charges the legendary Jesuit explorer, Pierre De Smet,
as being ethnocentric. This conflicts with the much-noted respect that was
accorded him within Lakota country of the mid-nineteenth century (chronicled in
biographies of the man). Similarly, the author’s emphasis on people’s resistance to
baptism begs reconciliation with images of De Smet busily baptizing numerous
souls when visiting Lakota who eagerly sought his blessing. By the same token, this
illustrates the challenge which scholars face when trying to understand a complicated socio-religious landscape of the past.
For example, as the Indian revitalization movement got traction in the late
twentieth century, activists and writers popularized a plaint that Markowitz echoes.
He writes that the Sicangu would find it “absurd” to abandon their beliefs and practices “for the ways and teachings of a wanikiye (lifegiver) named Jesus” (p. 182). The
problem with this observation is that throughout Lakota country of the early-reservation period, the Ghost Dance was widely popular—its central doctrine being that
Jesus would come again—this time, to Indian people. To what extent his return
would meld or replace old and new practices never materialized. However, embrace
of the Ghost Dance shows a people’s desire for sacred revelation—whatever its
source and tenets. Theirs was not a one-dimensional parochialism that contemporary observers so often associate with a native religious perspective.
Marquette University is the repository of diaries cited in Converting the Rosebud. It alone should beckon readers to visit Milwaukee and read the captivating
accounts not included within the text. Markowitz’s contribution is that he introduces readers to these diaries, and by doing so reveals the complex world of culture
contact as it bore upon religion. Inquiring minds will want to find greater clarity on
this topic, and so should be grateful to Converting the Rosebud for sparking interest
in this quest.
Wheeling Jesuit University

MICHAEL F. STELTENKAMP, S.J.

BOOK REVIEWS

175

Be Centered in Christ and Not in Self: The Missionary Society of Saint Columban:
The North American Story (1918–2018). By Angelyn Dries, O.S.F. (Orders@
Xlibris.com. 2017. Pp. xxix, 431. $34.99 hardcover: ISBN 978-1-5434-36204; $23.99 paperback: ISBN 978-1-5434-3621-1.)
Become a missionary and see the United States! This centennial history of the
Missionary Society of Saint Columban (Columbans) compliments a well-known
mantra: become a missionary and see the world! Domestic and international experience often grounds a sound missionary identity. Building upon pre-existing histories of the Columban missionary narrative, this case study describes the diverse
parameters whereby Irish Columbans, upon arrival in the United States (1918),
sought American financial and spiritual support for their newly established China
mission (1920) and others missionary efforts in the ensuing decades.
Designated by the Columbans to author the history, Angelyn Dries, O.S.F.,
professor emerita of St. Louis University and past president of the American Society of Missiology (1996–1997) as well as of the American Catholic Historical
Association (2015–2106), concentrated research in the varied Columban archives
and conducted numerous interviews of the membership. By using sources from
multiple religious archives, historical, theological, and missiological publications,
Dries enlivens and punctuates a detailed narrative. Historical unpacking of Columban North American missionary stewardship is the strength of this book.
Part One is “Development of a Corporate Columban Identity in the Region
of the United States, 1918–2018.” Six chapters utilize the backdrop of American
and Catholic history during this time frame. Described are Columban brick and
mortar building initiatives in relationship to cash flow concerns and domestic seminary training in the context of an expanding world mission ecclesiology. Notable
is the compelling leadership of Father Edward J. McCarthy from 1918 to 1934.
Every Columban, he wrote in 1922, “owes it . . . to adopt the outlook of the country
in which he works” (p. 31). McCarthy practiced what he preached: to “Americanize” (p. 26), he developed “simultaneously as a businessman, fundraiser, builder,
scholar, preacher, author, faculty member, sometime” mission magazine editor, and
local Nebraska pastor (pp. 5–6).
Dries’ narrative on how the Columbans came to be identified, particularly,
with Omaha, Nebraska (1918), Silver Creek, New York (1924), Bristol, Rhode
Island (1933), Milton, Massachusetts (1953), and Oconomowoc, Wisconsin
(1961), successfully combines local and world church narratives. Such a terraincognita relationship merits ongoing investigation by historians of American
Catholicism.
Part Two is “Focus Areas of Columban History.” In six chapters, Dries successfully argues that, during the twentieth century and the decades to follow,
Columbans employed theological principles of missiology praxis overseas within
the North American context: “Mission promotion and Mission Education”

176

BOOK REVIEWS

(Chap.7). Noteworthy innovative efforts of stewardship included Far East/Columban Mission Magazine and Bing Crosby singing on The Cross and Dragon, the 1930s
film by Father Richard Ranaghan to promote the China mission. Father ‘Charlie’
Coulter, in the 1970s, enhanced media/education outreach alongside social justice
and peace principles. Also, “Mission to Asian Communities in the United States”
(Chap. 8) provides a fascinating and welcome narrative of Columban ministry to
Chinese, Filipino, and Korean Catholics.
Minor editorial decisions would have been helpful. Occasionally, the narrative
and footnotes are repetitious and competitive. It would have been preferable to
number the footnotes for each chapter separately rather than sequentially throughout the book.
Overall, scholars of American religion, sociology, librarians, and graduate students interested in American Catholic identity and interdisciplinary themes associated with missiology will benefit from this book. They with friends, benefactors,
and local historians familiar with the breadth of the Columban missionary
endeavor will wish to acquire this significant work.
The University of Scranton

ROBERT E. CARBONNEAU, C.P.

Ukrainian Bishop, American Church: Constantine Bohachevsky and the Ukrainian
Catholic Church. By Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak. (Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press. 2018. Pp. xvii, 535. $75.00. ISBN 9780-81323-1594.)
This is an exemplary work of scholarship on the life and legacy of Bishop Constantine Bohachevsky of Philadelphia, who was the only bishop-eparch of the
Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States from 1924 to 1956 (the time of the
separation of the Stamford Eparchy from that of Philadelphia) and its first Metropolitan-Archbishop of Philadelphia from 1958 to his death on January 6, 1961
(Christmas Eve in the Julian Calendar). It is written by his niece in fine respect for
the character and work of her uncle. The author herself is known in academic surroundings as a professor emerita of Manhattanville College and a Fulbright Scholar.
It is this latter fact that provides the book with the endless hours of research in
archival resources that were available to her from resources in Stamford, CT and
Washington, DC, from the Vatican, and from state archives in Lviv and Poland.
This book far outweighs any previous works written on the history of the
Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States. Other books seem like mere historical surveys in comparison to this work produced as a critical biography.
The book serves as both a biography of Bishop Bohachevsky and as an assessment of the trials that he underwent in service to the Church and to a fledging
immigrant community far from Western Ukraine in a country where to be Catholic
meant one was Latin or Roman Catholic. The book presents the formation of the
character of this gifted churchman from his early priestly years of service in Lviv

BOOK REVIEWS

177

and Peremyshl (presently called Przemysl on worldwide maps of Poland) during
the 1910s and 1920s. It particularly captures his relationship with Bishop Iosafat
Kotsylovskyi of the Peremysl Eparchy as his vicar general from 1918 to 1924. In
1924, he was secretly consecrated a bishop and sent to a new missionary territory—
to serve as the jurisdictional exarch/bishop for Ukrainian Greek Catholics whose
roots were from Western Ukraine.
Thus began over thirty-five years of dedicated service to his Church and his
people in the United States—a time when he inherited a Church that was chaotic
in its structure. He faced great opposition from both clerical and lay circles in this
new land and survived with a steady hand and an unflinching spiritual character. It
was only in the 1930s that structure began to take shape of his vision for this
Church in a new and foreign land. New crises arose with the suppression of the
Mother Church in its homeland both under the Polish rule of pacification of Eastern Galicia (presently called Western Ukraine) and the two Soviet occupations of
the same territory separated only by the Nazi invasions of Eastern Europe and
World War II. He became the main voice of this Church in the free world following its forced suppression in its homeland in 1945. He had to meet the needs of
displaced refugees (both clergy and laity) in German and Austrian camps and preserved for many a life-saving existence.
There is so much that can be said of the character of this noble churchman in
scanning through a book of over five hundred pages covering six decades of ministry that cannot be adequately addressed in this review.
I believe that Bishop Bohachevsky strove with all his qualities to establish the
acceptance of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the American Catholic community. He did not prefer the usage of the term “Greek Catholic” in this land – he
simply used “Ukrainian Catholic” on all the corporate titles of new parishes and
institutions that were either founded by him or under his jurisdiction. For example,
Ukrainian Catholic Seminary, Inc., was founded in 1933 in Stamford; it later
became Saint Basil Prep and Saint Basil College Seminary.
This book deserves to be in every seminary and library of Catholic Church history and cannot be overlooked by anyone interested in Ukrainian-American church
history. For me, the book clearly shows a comparative greatness between Venerable
Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky, the Church’s leader in Western Ukraine from
1901 to 1944, and that of the dedicated churchman that Bishop Bohachevsky was
as the leading voice for that Church in the United States and free world from 1924
to 1961.
Ukrainian Museum and Library
Stamford, Connecticut

JOHN TERLECKY

178

BOOK REVIEWS

LATIN AMERICAN
Idea of a New General History of North America: An Account of Colonial Native
Mexico. By Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci. Edited and translated by Stafford
Poole. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 2015. Pp. xv, 288. $45.00.
ISBN 978-0-8061-4833-5.)
Lorenzo Boturini is best known for having assembled one of the largest collections of Mexican colonial indigenous codices in the mid-eighteenth century ever. As
he struggled to recover the collection from the Mexican authorities, Boturini printed
in 1746 a catalogue, along with a historiographical proposal on how to write a new
history of ancient Mexico. The proposal drew on new forms of evidence, primarily
Nahua vocabularies. This book is a fine translation of Boturini’s original eighteenthcentury Spanish publication, Idea de una nueva historia general. Boturini’s printed
catalogue of codices is confusing and garbled, for the Italian relied on memory to
reconstruct it. It took John B. Glass over thirty years to locate the titles and whereabouts of Boturini’s original collection. As for Boturni’s new ideas on how to rewrite
the ancient history of “North America,” they belong in a cultural world that is long
gone. Why then to translate today an utterly alien text? The introduction fails to
explain why. The critical apparatus in the translation is not very helpful either.
Boturini was a peculiar disciple of Giovanni Battista Vico, who believed that
after the Noachian flood societies fragmented into roaming individuals who had to
rebuild communities from the ground up—one mute and bumbling couple and
extended family at a time. Boturini’s proposal relied on Euhemerist ideas, very popular among early-eighteenth-century French antiquarians like Nicolas Fréret.
Heroes in classical mythology and therefore in Ovid’s Metamorphoses were archived
to document the past of ancient “poetic” peoples. In 1746, Boturini did not yet have
an archive for the Indies; he offered to assemble one after returning to Mexico. Idea
is therefore more of a Viconian reading of Ovid than a Euhemerist analysis of actual
Mesoamerican ancient oral traditions. The Idea is largely the history of the Indies’
scared, orally inarticulate individuals who slowly begin to speak to each other using
“poetic” shorthand: symbols, objects, names. In Boturini’s hands, for example, the
names of thirteen deities in Mexican ritual calendars become the archive of Mexico’s
turbulent post-Noachian struggle to create a social contract. We learn that Tlaloc,
the deity of lighting, stands for the Nahua’s fear of higher powers among promiscuous individuals copulating daily in the open. “Tlaloc” reveals the origin of the first
families in caves. Methodologically and historiographically, Boturini has little to
offer us today. Yet his Idea is an extraordinary political, cultural, and intellectual testament to the complexities of mid-eighteenth century Mexico and Spain.
Historians such as Ivan Escamilla (not cited by Poole) have used the origins
of Boturini’s archive of codices to reconstruct networks of church patronage in the
cathedrals of Puebla and Mexico, where Boturini enjoyed unprecedented backing.
Nahua nuns, for example, offered him contacts to Nahua elites in indigenous barrios in Mexico and Tlaxcala. He also enjoyed support of key merchant families in

BOOK REVIEWS

179

Mexico’s consulado (merchant guild). Boturini obtained his archive of codices while
acting as representative of merchant-corregidores while the Nahua were struck by
the matlazáhuatl epidemic in Tlaxcala. The epidemic forced many Tlaxcalans to
part with family heirlooms, along with property and lands, to pay their debts.
Poole did not do his homework on the historiography on Boturini and dismisses
as unreliable Georgio Antei’s 2007 biography of Boturini. Antei maintained that
Boturini was not a noble but a commoner born in a village in the Italian Alps without
offering clear documentation. Poole argues that Antei’s conclusions are speculative
and untrustworthy. The problem is that Antei draws on Italian publications of Pío
Rajna and Enrico Besta, dating back to the 1930s, both very solidly footnoted.
Finally, Poole dismisses my own reading of Boturni’s Idea as the beginning of
a historiographical conflict between a feuding “Aragonés” party at court and the
supporters of the Italian scholar in Madrid. The debate, I argued in 2001, was over
the perceived technical incompetence of the Italian regarding Mexican calendrics.
It was also over the sonnets and epigrams that accompanied the Idea. The para-text
dismissed all previous “Spanish” historians, such as Garcilaso Inca de la Vega and
José de Acosta, as unreliable. The Italian, his supporters alleged, was the modern
equivalent of Columbus and Vespucci, a discoverer of new worlds of knowledge.
The “Aragones” clique (clustered around the royal librarian Blas Antonio Nasarre)
laughed and presented Boturini as a plagiarist of Vico. Poole argues that this is
unlikely because the Aragonese did not participate in the conquest and administration of the Indies. This is a striking statement. Not only did conquistadors come
from every town in Aragon, Corsica, Sicily, Naples, Minorca, and Mallorca
(among others) but there were literally dozens of oidores and even a few Aragonese
and Catalan viceroys in America. Two of Boturini’s most important supporters in
Mexico City were themselves Aragonese: José and Joaquín Codallos.
University of Texas, Austin

JORGE CAÑIZARES-ESGUERRA

Mexican Exodus: Emigrants, Exiles, and Refugees of the Cristero War. By Julia G.
Young. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016. Pp. xii, 271. $82.00. ISBN
978-0-19-020500-3.)
My nonagenarian father has vivid memories of going to a “bootleg” Catholic
kindergarten in the early 1930s, trying to avoid soldiers in Pénjamo, Guanajuato on
his way to the house of the week, where Catholic nuns offered elicit lessons on the
faith to young Mexicans in the aftermath of the Cristero War. My American-born
father, whose family fled to Chicago during the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s,
grew up in his mother’s hometown in the Catholic heartland of Mexico. His story,
like those recounted in Julia Young’s Mexico Exodus, reveals the transnational
nature of Mexican communities, and the ways Catholicism permeated the journeys
abroad and returns home for many Mexicans across multiple generations.
Dr. Young writes that her primary argument is that the Cristero War had a
much wider geographic impact than previously understood. Indeed, this is her

180

BOOK REVIEWS

intervention in Mexican historiography. For American Catholic historians, “the
transnational forms of popular activism and resistance that occurred within the
Mexican emigrant diaspora” (13) are much more significant. The book describes
countless failed attempts by Cristeros in exile in the United States to overthrow
their government. These failures do not reduce the impact of Cristero exiles; rather
they illustrate the abiding commitment to the Cristero cause despite the overwhelming odds when two governments and many of their own emigrant countrymen were against them.
Chapter 1 details the long history of Church-State conflict in Mexico. Chapter 2 brings Cristero migrants—both lay and clerical—into focus, highlighting
their journeys to cities across the U.S. Southwest and Midwest. Young centers the
work among Cristeros in the United States to keep pressure on the Mexican government to repeal the Calles Law in the third chapter, creating tensions within
local communities and building networks of Cristero exiles across the United
States. In the fourth chapter, Young considers largely unsuccessful efforts to mobilize the U.S. Catholic hierarchy and lay communities in support of the Cristero
resistance. Chapter 5 outlines the lasting influence of the Cristeros in the Catholic
patriotism of Mexicans like my father in the decade following the 1929 settlement
between Church and state. The final chapter features the lasting resonance of the
Cristero era and its martyrs for Mexicans and Mexican Americans. In the epilogue,
Young displays contemporary commemorations of the Cristero era by American
Catholic groups and Mexican American Catholics.
The strength of Mexican Exodus is the unearthing of countless stories of Mexicans in exile rallying around their faith and against their government from the
United States. Though occasional glimpses of Catholic practice among early twentieth-century Mexican American communities have been captured in previous
texts, they rarely mention Cristeros or political dissension around issues of religion.
Young describes the tensions the Cristero War brought to these communities in
vivid detail and shows that Cristeros in the United States did not just bide their
time until they could return to Mexico, or settle in to established Mexican communities in the United States. They continued the fight for their faith within local
communities and kept their focus—emotional, political, and financial—on removing the Calles regime from power.
The book would benefit from a thorough copy edit. In addition to wording
issues here and there, for example, Francis Kelley’s surname is misspelled twice in
a paragraph in which it appears three times (48). These kinds of errors detract from
the narrative and make the reader wonder what other oversights there might be.
Mexican Exodus is a significant contribution to the growing historical literature on Mexican American Catholicism. Julia Young’s vital history illustrates the
lived religion of Cristeros and their descendants in the United States.
University of Groningen

ANNE M. MARTÍNEZ

Report of the Acting Editor
Volume 104 of the journal consisted of 760 pages of articles, addresses, essays,
book reviews, brief notices, and the quarterly sections of Notes and Comments,
Periodical Literature, and Other Books Received, with an additional fourteen
pages of preliminary material and twenty-seven pages of the General Index. In all,
Volume 104 contained 774 pages—138 fewer than Volume 103 owing to a diminished number of book reviews.
Of the eighteen regular articles including the presidential address published in
the Review, five treated a medieval topic, four late modern Europe, five North
America, two Latin America, and one each Africa and Asia. Gender distribution:
fourteen men and four women authors, reflecting the large number of manuscript
submissions by men.
Fourteen contributors are associated with American institutions. In addition
to Americans, other authors are nationals from Belgium, Czech Republic, Croatia,
Tanzania, and China. In addition, the Forum Essay dealing with Early Church
history was the work of five contributors from the United States.
In 2018, the journal published fifty-six book reviews—lower than previous
years. The reviews are subdivided into general and miscellaneous (3), ancient (5),
medieval (8), early Modern Europe (15), late modern Europe (8), American (10),
and Latin American (7).
The reviewers included nationals of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and South Africa. The gender distribution:
seventeen women and thirty-nine men.
Article-length manuscripts appear regularly representing the range of periods
and topics related to Catholic history. In various categories, they consist of submitted manuscripts (7), rejected or withdrawn (4), conditionally accepted (2), and
pending revision in 2018 and from previous years (13).
Staffing the Review has been in transition in 2018. The staff editor, Richard
Lender, recruited in 2017, took ill early in 2018 and resigned. Editor Nelson Minnich began a sabbatical in May. Joseph M. White became acting editor in June.
New staff editor, Thomas Deutsch, graduate student in theology at the Catholic
University of America, began work in July. In the autumn a family matter intervened for the acting editor and caused a delay in producing the summer issue.
The Review’s staff working from but not necessarily in the Review’s executive
suite in the Mullen Library at the Catholic University of America consists of the
acting editor and staff editor Thomas Deutsch, who both work mostly offsite. Asso181

182

BOOK REVIEWS

ciate editor, Msgr. Robert Trisco, coordinates book reviews and selects titles for the
Publications, Periodical Literature and Other Books Received sections. Margaret
“Katya” Mouris, graduate student in history at the Catholic University of America,
assists with the many tasks related to book reviews and other duties as assigned.
Associate editor Jennifer Paxton, director of the Catholic University of America’s
Honors Program and a medievalist, handles medieval matters. Cheryl Mullings of
Boca Type in Boca Raton, Florida, continues to serve graciously and effectively as
typesetter. Advisory editors representing six academic institutions are available for
advice especially related to planning. A plethora of academic scholars from around
the country and abroad accept the invitation to evaluate article-manuscripts; they
are known only to God and the editors. Without their hard work and thoughtful
and detailed evaluations it would not be possible to maintain the journal’s high level
of quality. Thanks to them and to all who make possible the complex undertaking
of producing the quarterly issues of the nation’s oldest academic journal under
Catholic auspices!
JOSEPH M. WHITE
Acting Editor

Notes and Comments
At its Presidential Luncheon during the annual meeting of the American
Catholic Historical Association on January 5, 2019 in Chicago, the following
awards with their citations were announced:
John Gilmary Shea Book Prize: Michelle Armstrong-Partida of the University of
Texas at El Paso, for Defiant Priests: Domestic Unions, Violence, and Clerical Masculinity in Fourteenth-Century Catalunya (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2017).
This meticulously researched monograph reconstructs the lives of Catalunyan
clerics on the eve of the Black Death, offering an intimate view of the passions and
conflicts animating their parishes. It draws upon over 2,500 surviving episcopal visitation records from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Through her analysis
of these and many other sources, Michelle Armstrong-Partida establishes not only
that clerical domestic unions (marriages in fact if not in law) were ubiquitous in late
medieval Catalunya, but also that clerics in both major and minor orders routinely
exhibited the behaviors of their lay male counterparts—most disturbingly, the violent defense of their status and honor within their villages.
The author also reconstructs dozens of clerical families, showing how sons succeeded their fathers in the clerical profession over several generations. ArmstrongPartida effectively demonstrates that the Gregorian reforms had little effect in this
corner of western Europe, and that clerics were formed by and participated in the
dominant masculine culture in which they lived. In sum, this highly significant
study of clerical life in medieval Catalunya opens new vistas on the ecclesiastical
development of Europe and raises questions for further investigation, by centering
Iberia alongside England and France within the history of clerical celibacy. On
account of its outstanding research and original contributions, Defiant Priests
deserves recognition with the 2018 John Gilmary Shea Prize.
Harry C. Koenig Book Award for: Tatyana V. Bakhmetyeva, Mother of the Church:
Sofia Svechina, the Salon, and the Politics of Catholicism in Nineteenth-Century
Russia and France
Mother of the Church is a thoroughly researched and well told history of an
unusual and neglected figure in modern church history, the Russian aristocrat and
Roman Catholic convert Sofia Svechina. The research required familiarity with
extensive sources in Russian, French, and other languages. Svechina, who was multilingual, read profusely and left behind notebooks on her reading as well as her
personal reflections on spiritual subjects. Bahkmetyeva uses these materials to
183

184

NOTES AND COMMENTS

explore Svechina’s engaging character and her religious thought. The book shows
how Svechina was engaged in and took informed positions on important public
questions, in conversation with leading intellectuals, first in her native Russia and
then in Paris. She became close to Catholic leaders of widely different views, especially through her Paris salon.
This book blends the story of Svechina’s appealing personality and her impact
on friends and contacts, amid the background first of war, dislocation, and postFrench Revolutionary reaction, and then of debates about the future of Europe and
the Catholic Church. Bakhmetyeva’s description of salons, their sources and influence, and their demise represents an important contribution to nineteenth-century
history generally and to women’s history. Bakhmetyeva’s biography of Sofia
Svechina well deserves the Koenig Prize.
H o w a r d R . M a r r a r o B o o k P r i z e : P a u l F . G r e n d l e r , The Jesuits and Italian Universities, 1548–1773
Paul Grendler applies his unparalleled understanding of Renaissance education to elucidate the frequently contentious, less-often harmonious relationship
between Italian universities and the Jesuit order. With exemplary clarity and economy, he balances a command of the European stage and mastery of archival
resources to identify how ideological differences, amplified by local concerns, prevented men who seemed “predestined to become university professors” from penetrating Italy’s universities, notwithstanding the Jesuits’ growing international dominance over Catholic education. For this, the ACHA is happy to award him the
Marraro Prize.
Th e A C H A 2 0 1 9 D i s t i n g u i s h e d S c h o l a r A w a r d p r e s e n t e d t o J . P h i l i p G l e a s o n ,
U n i v e r sit y o f N o t r e D a m e
Philip Gleason, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Notre
Dame, received a master’s degree in history from the University Notre Dame in
1955, joined the University’s history department faculty in 1959, and received his
doctoral degree the following year. He chaired Notre Dame’s history department
from 1971–74, and has also been a visiting professor of American Catholic history
at the Catholic University of America, and chair of The Catholic Commission on
Intellectual and Cultural Affairs. In addition to setting a rigorous standard for
faith-inspired teaching and research at Notre Dame, he earned an enviable reputation among historians worldwide.
Gleason’s magnus opus is considered to be his masterful Contending With
Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the 20th Century. He is also the author of
many other books on American Catholicism, including The Conservative Reformers:
German-American Catholics and the Social Order, and Contemporary Catholicism in
the United States, as well as Keeping the Faith: American Catholicism Past and Present,
a collection of some of the most penetrating essays ever published on the subject.
Gleason has also published an extraordinary number of journal articles, including,

NOTES AND COMMENTS

185

most recently, a historiographical review of the first hundred years of the Catholic
Historical Review, published on the occasion of that journal’s centennial in 2015.
Gleason is regarded as an eminent scholar not only in the field of American
Catholic history but also in U.S. social and intellectual history. His essays on
American identity are widely read and cited by the most eminent historians of the
twentieth century. In his entry on American identity and Americanization, which
was published in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, Gleason
defined “what it means to be an American” thusly:
To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to
do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the
abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open
to anyone who willed to become an American.
Gleason is a past president of the American Catholic Historical Association
and also the recipient of the Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame,
the highest honor awarded to an American Catholic.
For the breadth and depth of his contribution to the study of the American
past, for his prominence in the field of American Catholic history and beyond, for
his extraordinary generosity as a scholar, for the generations of students he has
mentored and influenced, the American Catholic Historical Association presents
its 2019 Distinguished Scholar Award to J. Philip Gleason.
The ACHA Distinguished Teaching Award presented to Rev. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame
The American Catholic Historical Association proudly bestows its 2018
Teaching Award on Father Wilson D. “Bill” Miscamble, of the Congregation of
Holy Cross and Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. A native of
“the land down under,” the great nation of Australia, Father Miscamble, came to
the United States after his initial baccalaureate and master level education at the
University of Queensland and completed a Ph.D. in American history at the University of Notre Dame in January 1980. Father Bill has traversed the grounds of the
Golden Dome since 1982, completing religious formation in 1987 and being
ordained a priest in 1988.
Father Bill has been a prominent member of the faculty at Notre Dame since
1988, as well as completing visiting fellow and professorships at Yale University
and the University of St. Mary of the Lake (Mundelein Seminary) in Chicago. He
has held his present position of Professor since 2007.
For Father Bill, teaching has been the center of his apostolic work as a Holy
Cross priest. Referencing one of the former presidents at Notre Dame, Father John
Cavanaugh, Father Bill once wrote “From the outset I began teaching here with a

186

NOTES AND COMMENTS

strong sense that I was engaged in a spiritual undertaking. I knew that it was not
only about improving minds, but shaping souls—that I was called to nurture students’ religious and moral development as well as their intellectual lives and to aid
them in integrating the two.” His passion as an educator comes through clearly in
both his own words and those of his students. He once wrote, “At my best, I seek
to engage my students, to get to know them, to convey some sense of my passion
for my subject and its importance such that students are transformed into ‘fellowlearners’ and, indeed, into friends. This process of engagement is time-consuming
but beneficial in terms both of good pedagogy and my own joy in teaching.” The
words of his students also speak to his passion and spirit in the classroom. One student wrote, “He is very passionate and knowledgeable about the material. He is
very capable of putting material in a global context, proving the importance of it.
Another student commented, “Father Bill is one of the brightest and most passionate professors that I have had at Notre Dame. He truly cares about his students and
makes class both incredibly informative and engaging.” A third student, acknowledging what Father Bill sees as an integral part of his ministry stated, “I love that
we start every class with a prayer because I grew up doing that at school and I think
that is so important. The amount of effort and care Father Bill puts into our class
is evident and so appreciated.”
Miscamble’s expertise as a teacher, acknowledged by his students, has also
been recognized by officials at Notre Dame. In 1989, after completing his first year
of full-time teaching, he was awarded the Thomas P. Madden Award for Excellence in Freshman Teaching. In 1992 He was the first recipient of the Frank
O’Malley Undergraduate Teaching Award. In 2001 he was the co-recipient of the
Sheedy Award for Excellence in Teaching in the College of Arts and Letters.
Lastly he has also received a Kaneb Teaching Award.
While it is clearly evident that Father Bill is most deserving of this award for
teaching, he must also be acknowledged for his significant contributions in scholarship. He has written three monographs, all associated with the presidency of
Harry Truman, and numerous scholarly articles and book chapters. In March his
long-in-generation biography of fellow Holy Cross priest and long-serving President at the University of Notre Dame, Father Ted Hesburgh, will be published.
It is thoroughly appropriate that the American Catholic Historical Association bestow its 2018 award for teaching on Father Bill Miscamble, of the Congregation of Holy Cross, priest, professor, and scholar.
The ACHA 2018 Award for Distinguished Service to Catholic Studies presented
to Fordham University
The origins of Fordham University can be traced to 1839 when John Hughes,
the Coadjutor Bishop of New York, bought 100 acres at Rose Hill in the Fordham
section of what was then Westchester County. He founded St. John’s College on
this site in 1841. For financial reasons, in 1846 Bishop Hughes was happy to sell
St. John’s College to the Society of Jesus. In the early twentieth century, St. John’s

NOTES AND COMMENTS

187

College transitioned to Fordham University. Today, Fordham is an internationally
recognized university dedicated to world-class research and undergraduate and
graduate education.
The American Catholic Historical Association is indebted to Fordham University, and its president, Rev. Joseph McShane, S.J., for hosting our Association
Headquarters from 2011 until 2018. We are grateful for the stewardship of our
Association by Rev. R. Bentley Anderson, S.J., Executive Secretary-Treasurer
during this period. We therefore award this year’s Distinguished Service recognition to Fordham University and thanks to Dr. Jim McCartin for accepting the
award on Fordham’s behalf.
ACHA Centennial Award presented to Msgr. Robert Tricso
For almost half of the century of its existence, the American Catholic Historical Association was remarkably well served by its Secretary and Treasurer, Msgr.
Robert F. Trisco. He assumed the position of assistant secretary in 1960. With the
resignation of Msgr. John Tracy Ellis, Msgr. Trisco became the executive secretary
in 1961, a position he held until 2006. He stepped in again during 2007 to 2009
while the Association searched for a new secretary. When the Association’s treasurer Msgr. Harry Koenig retired in 1983, Msgr. Trisco took over that responsibility
too, serving in the position until 2006 and again during 2007 to 2009.
As secretary, he carried out many tasks. He managed membership rolls, sending out invoices, organizing campaigns to recruit new members, and contacting
those who let their membership lapse. When he retired finally in 2009 he reported
the membership at 915. He arranged the annual meetings by recommending persons to serve on the program committee and instructing them on how to proceed.
He also dealt with the American Historical Association to insure our meetings
were held in one of the headquarter hotels and our programs were included in the
listings of the AHA. In addition, he negotiated with hotels for rooms for the sessions and had the program for the annual meeting printed and mailed. He helped
the Association’s presidents set up committees and create lists of candidates to run
for office. Under his direction, the ballots were sent to members and the votes tallied. At the meetings of the Executive Council and the public Business Meeting,
he gave reports that were extensive and detailed and always included a prayerful
remembrance of the members who had died during the previous year. His presentation at the Business Meeting was so thorough that few members had questions,
and everyone was happy to head for the social hours that immediately followed.
When the annual meeting was over, he collected the reports of the officers and
committees and had them printed in the Catholic Historical Review.
Over the decades he also regularly represented the Association at the quinquennial meetings of the International Congress of Historical Sciences, where he
joined the International Commission for Comparative Ecclesiastical History,
becoming the liaison for the United States, president of the American sub-com-

188

NOTES AND COMMENTS

mission, and member (assessor) of the Commission’s Bureau (1980–2010). From
1982 to 2009 he was a member of the Pontifical Committee of Historical Sciences.
Msgr. Trisco was the anchor of stability that in his quiet, efficient, meticulous, and behind-the-scenes ways saw that that things ran smoothly, deadlines
were met, and the Association was represented at national and international meetings of historians.
On becoming Treasurer, he set up a committee of financial advisors and followed their counsel on how to invest the Association’s funds. These funds grew over
the years, not only because of their sage advice, but because Msgr. Trisco and his
faithful assistant for many years, the retired Master Sargent Anne Wolf, worked for
free and paid their own expenses when attending the meetings of the Association,
meetings he attended faithfully, no matter the winter weather.
He maintained a seamless web between the Association and its journal, The
Catholic Historical Review. Msgr. Trisco was appointed in 1960 as an associate
editor with responsibility for the book review and periodical literature sections.
When he returned from the Second Vatican Council in the spring of 1963, he was
appointed the managing editor. He continued the policies Msgr. Ellis had set at the
journal. The one innovation he made was in the design of the journal’s cover,
replacing the mono-green cover with one that was white with a different illustration for each issue. He printed in the journal all the Association’s reports and
announcements, personal items regarding its members, and obituary notices. Many
authors thanked him for helping them to improve the quality of their article. He
returned book reviews to their authors, insisting that they not merely summarize
the book but evaluate its contribution to the field, provide pages numbers for their
quotations, the first names of anyone mentioned, and stay within the word limit.
He was praised for consistently producing volume after volume without any typographical errors, due to his eagle-eye proofreading. Under his editorship, the CHR
became a journal highly respected by all scholars.
In the history of the Association, three persons stand out: Msgr. Peter Guilday
who was its founding father; Msgr. John Tracy Ellis who worked to raise its scholarly reputation; and Msgr. Robert Trisco who secured for the Association renown
as the leading society in the English-language world for the study of the history of
Catholicism. For his remarkably dedicated services, the American Catholic Historical Association bestows on Msgr. Robert F. Trisco its Centennial Award as a
token of its deep affection and gratitude.
The ACHA Peter Guilday Award presented to: Troy J. Tice, “‘Containing Heresy
and Errors’: Thomas of Bailly and the Condemned Extracts of the Mirror of
Simple Souls”
This well-researched and gracefully written study, which appeared in the
Autumn 2018 issue of The Catholic Historical Review, analyzes the involvement of
Thomas of Bailly, master of theology and penitentiary of the diocese of Paris, in the

NOTES AND COMMENTS

189

examination of extracts taken from Marguerite Porete’s Mirror of Simple Souls. To
date no one has examined the precise theological formulations that led Thomas and
twenty other theologians to recommend that the Mirror’s author to be consigned,
as heretical, to the flames. By examining Thomas’s career and writing, this article
unearths the theological scaffolding that the Porete extracts ignored, thus enriching
our understanding of one of the most famous heresy trials of the Middle Ages. For
its new assessment of an important theological figure the Peter Guilday Prize is
gladly awarded to Troy J. Tice.
John Tracy Ellis Dissertation Award: Elisabeth Davis, “The Centralization Controversy: Nuns, Bishops, and the Development of the American Catholic Church,
1800–1865.”
Elisabeth Davis’s project will be an important contribution to several fields in
early American history, including women’s history, religious history, and Catholic
history. The literature on nuns is robust in early modern Europe, but in early America nuns have been given short shrift, even though they occupied positions of
authority. Elisabeth focuses on the controversies surrounding centralization within
American Catholicism during the first half of the nineteenth century, which allows
her to focus on power dynamics among nuns, between nuns and bishops, and
between nuns and lay men and women. It is an important topic. Her dissertation
integrates women’s contributions to and gendered perspectives on this critical
period in the development of a “U.S. Catholic church.” The fact that Davis has
already begun publishing, and is close to finishing her doctoral work suggests
someone who will continue to make contributions to the field of American
Catholic History. This year the number of applicants exceeded those of the last
three years. This made the selection process more difficult, but bodes well for the
field of Catholic History into the future.

ARCHIVES
Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives, Bishop Sergio Pagano,
Reflects on the Opening of the Archives of Pope Pius XII
On March 4, 2019 when receiving in audience the superiors and collaborators
of the Vatican Secret Archives, Pope Francis reflected on his decision to open to
qualified researchers on March 2, 2020, the Holy See’s Archives for the entire
period of Pope Pius XII’s pontificate (March 2, 1939–October 9, 1958), an
announcement awaited for some time by the scholarly world and coinciding with
the eightieth anniversary of the election of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli to the Throne
of Peter. Obviously, Pope Francis’ important initiative has behind it a long period
of preparation, during which the archivists of the Vatican Secret Archives and their
colleagues of other Vatican Archives have carried out a patient work of ordering,
counting, and inventorying of many fonds and documents concerning Pius XII’s
pontificate.

190

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Antecedents
In December 2002, Pope Saint John Paul II, sensitive to the requests from
various sources to examine the Holy See’s documents for the period between the
two World Wars, decided to make accessible some fonds of the Vatican Secret
Archives, still belonging to the so-called “closed period,” in view of a future opening of Pius XII’s pontificate: Archives of the Apostolic Nunciature of Munich in
Bavaria (1922–1934); Archives of the Apostolic Nunciature of Berlin (1922–1930).
The following were made available at the same time: Archive of the Secretariat of
State, Section of Relations with States (then Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs),
Bavaria (1922–1939), and Germany (1922–1939); Archive of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, documents relating to the condemnation of Communism and of National Socialism.
On June 8, 2004, Pope John Paul II himself, in view of anticipating progressive limited openings, made available to researchers the Vatican Archives’ ample
fond of the Vatican Office of Information for prisoners of war (1939–1947). Made
up of 2,349 archival units, subdivided in 556 envelops, 108 registers and 1,685
boxes of documentation, with alphabetical filing, they include almost two million
recorded names, regarding military and civilian prisoners, missing or interned, of
whom news was sought. This fond was extensively researched, and it is still greatly
requested by private scholars and relatives of deceased prisoners.
On June 30, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI decided to open the whole of Pius XI’s
pontificate (1922–1939), which was carried out in September of that year, at the
autumn opening of the Vatican Archives. On that occasion the Vatican Archives
could be consulted, including the great fond of the first Section of the Secretariat
of State (General Affairs), and the Second Section, Relations with States (then
Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs). From 2011, the latter has been given
autonomous classification.
While fonds for Pius XI’s pontificate were being made available, work in the
Vatican Archives was underway for the progressive preparation of Pius XII’s documentary material, which many scholars were requesting with ever greater insistence.
The amount of work was certainly heavy and in 2008 Father Federico Lombardi, SJ,
Director of the Holy See Press Office, stated in Corriere della Sera of October 31,
that the opening of material for Pacelli’s pontificate could take place “within 6–7
years,” or around 2014/2015. It was too optimistic. Preparation of the enormous
documentation as well as the burden on the Archives staff postponed the opening.
Finally, in the course of about thirteen years, which was not too long a time
for those involved in archival work, Pope Francis made the decision, fully aware of
all the steps carried out, which will have its practical implementation on March 2,
2020.
[For the complete article that includes a listing of categories of documents that
will be released, see zenit.org.]

NOTES AND COMMENTS

191

CONFERENCES
On October 9–12, 2019, Universities Studying Slavery (USS) 2019 Fall Symposium, on the topic, “The Academy’s Original Sin,” co-sponsored by Xavier University and the University of Cincinnati will be held at Cincinnati. USS is a multiinstitutional collaborative effort working to address historical and contemporary
issues dealing with race and inequality in higher education and university communities, and the complicated legacies of slavery in modern American society. This
symposium encourages collaboration among—and unites scholars from—a broad
range of colleges and universities to better understand the role of enslaved people
and their relation to higher education. Slavery’s legacy in the American academy is
demonstrated in myriad ways, from African-American access to higher education
and discussions surrounding reparative justice, to racism and discrimination within
academe and battles to rename places/spaces on college campuses nationwide. The
Fall 2019 Symposium continues the conversation, focusing on the enslavement of
people of African descent and how that enslavement manifested itself in the development of U.S. educational institutions. Moreover, it will directly question these
complicated legacies.
This year’s symposium features pre-selected panel topics and participants are
encouraged to submit proposals accordingly. (Symposium organizers reserve the
right to include additional/alter current panels as interest dictates.)
Legacies of the Middle Passage: This panel evaluates the lasting legacies of the
transatlantic slave trade, focusing on a variety of responses to cultural trauma and
efforts to heal and transform.
Teaching Trauma: As recent controversies have made clear, the history of slavery and the slave trade are often taught in wildly inappropriate ways in American
schools. This panel explores the advantages and disadvantages of different
approaches to teaching this challenging material.
The Ties that Bind: Histories of Religion and Race at XU and UC: This panel is
exclusively designed for XU and UC faculty/administration to discuss developments on our campuses re: controversial spaces and historical legacies.
Violent Evangelism: Weaponizing Faith & Teaching Place: Slaveholders and
their sympathizers often defended slavery by pointing to its presence in the Bible
as evidence of its place in a higher plan for social order. Interpretation of biblical
stories like Cain and Abel, and that of Noah’s son Ham, offered proof that
“Negroes” were accursed and their enslavement theologically condoned. This panel
explores the Christianization of slaves, segregationist theology, and the ethics of
disarmament.
New-Age ‘Fieldwork’: Intellectual Chains of the 2 1 st Century: Especially on large
plantations, the institution of slavery created distinct occupational hierarchies, distinguishing between tradesmen, fieldworkers, house slaves (domestics, wet nurses,

192

NOTES AND COMMENTS

etc.), etc. Do academic hierarchies of the twenty-first century mimic these relationships of the past? What is the new “fieldwork” for the Diaspora, and how does the
academy bridge the divide between the Ivory Tower and the local communities
within which it physically stands?
Legacies of Slavery: Undergraduate and graduate students are invited to present
original research pursuant to the Symposium title. Potential participants are welcome to discuss their unique campus climate regarding the work of retributive justice, and to introduce the broad range of activities designed to facilitate (or hinder)
and official acknowledgment of the sacrifices of black bodies for the development
of the Ivory Tower.
40 Acres and a Myth: Union General William T. Sherman’s Special Field
Order No. 15, an idea for massive land redistribution following the Civil War, is a
staple of black history lessons. There are numerous facets of this revolutionary idea
still not understood. This panel looks to the past as a starting point for examining
the concepts of social reconstruction, retributive justice, and reparations, and asks,
“What contemporary concessions can/should be made to the descendants of slaves
in the United States?”
When Will We Be Satisfied?: Re-evaluating ‘Progress’ in a Post-King America:
August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech that has resonated for
decades. In what has become known as the “I Have a Dream” speech, King voiced
the pressing demands of the civil rights movement, and posed a challenging question regarding the supposed progress of race relations in America. This panel invites
presenters to respond to King’s query, “When will we be satisfied?” and the significance of the continued phenomenon of racism in America.
Global Perspectives on Retributive Justice: Retributive justice is a theory of justice that holds that the best response to a crime is a punishment proportional to the
offense, inflicted because the offender deserves the punishment. With specific
regard to the legacy of slavery in the United States, this panel assumes agency and
communion can further understanding the experiences of victims, and invites presentations that broadly address retributive justice, value restoration and procedural
justice.
Contributions from researchers in a range of disciplines from anthropology,
cultural studies, history, political science, psychology, religion, sociology, urban
studies and other fields are encouraged. Practitioners in cultural history institutions, and the visual and performing arts, are also encouraged to submit, as nontraditional and/or alternative forms of presenting research, e.g. in videos, visual art
or performances, will be supported.
Email an abstract of the proposed paper/presentation (limit 500 words) and
CV to USS2019XUC@xavier.edu by July 1, 2019. Presenters will be notified
within two weeks if their proposal has been selected for a panel. The USS2019XUC
Symposium registration will open on July 15, 2019.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

193

FELLOWSHIPS
Call for Applications ReIReS Scholarships for Transnational Access
ReIReS offers International Scholarships in Religious Studies:
Scholars from any academic discipline are invited to apply for a scholarship to
spend two weeks in one of 14 outstanding European research centres (libraries and
archives) in Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, and Italy to carry out their
research project in historical religious studies.
ReIReS grants:
• Free travel and accommodation.
• Free access to physical and virtual sources under the guidance of experts.
Libraries and Archives which offer ReIReS Scholarships for Transnational Access:
• École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France: Collections patrimoniales,
Collections of papyruses.
• École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France: Collections patrimoniales,
Ethnographic Collection.
• École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris, France: Collections patrimoniales,
Shiite Collection.
• Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII, Bologna, Italy: Giuseppe
Dossetti Library and FSCIRE Archives.
• JGU Mainz, Germany: Bereichsbibliothek Theologie/Theological Library
and Jüdische Bibliothek/Jewish Library.
• JGU Mainz, Germany: Gesangbucharchiv/Hymnbook Archive.
• Katholieke Universiteit Leuven/KU Leuven, Belgium: Central Library, Manuscripts & Rare Books.
• Katholieke Universiteit Leuven/KU Leuven, Belgium: Maurits Sabbe
Library, Rare and Precious Books.
• Katholieke Universiteit Leuven/KU Leuven, Belgium: Maurits Sabbe
Library, Archive for the Study of Vatican II.
• Katholieke Universiteit Leuven/KU Leuven, Belgium: University Archive.
• Martinus-Bibliothek—Wissenschaftliche Diözesanbibliothek/MartinusBibliothek—Academic and Regional Library of the Diocese of Mainz (Partner of JGU Mainz), Germany.
• Sofiiski Universitet Sveti Kliment Ohridski/Sofia University St. Kliment
Ohridski, Bulgaria: Center for Slavonic and Byzantine Studies.
• Universität Hamburg, Germany: University Library, Special Collections.
• Wissenschaftliche Stadtbibliothek Mainz/Municipal Academic Library
Mainz, Germany (Partner of JGU Mainz).
Click on the websites of the institutions above for detailed information on
their holdings and the services of ReIReS.

194

NOTES AND COMMENTS

All these centres and libraries hold relevant collections for the history of
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and also Ancient and non European Religions. They
grant access to their collections of manuscripts, rare books, documents and materials which allow research concerning religious studies and interreligious and interconfessional dialogue throughout history.
Call for Applications:
Scholars from Europe and from countries associated to H2020 can apply for
a scholarship to consult each of these special collections, libraries and archives
(excluding those belonging to the user country) in order to develop innovative
investigations in historical religious studies.
ReIReS grants to users the support for travel (standard economy airfare) and
subsistence (accommodation). Users spent typically two weeks at the provider institution, meeting experts and scholars, the curator of the special collections, conservator and restorers.
Users of ReIReS transnational access take advantage in dealing with all these
materials with the constant tutorial of experts of the host provider who are specialists in the research field for which access has been requested, and who assist and
guide the use and interpretation of the data.
Users should aim to publish the results with a realistic timing and preferably in
open access ISI or SCOPUS refereed journals that have substantial academic impact.
Support of the EU as well the use of the ReIReS services must be clearly acknowledged in the academic publication realised using ReIReS’ transnational access.
ReIReS Invites Applications from:
1) Scholars who develop a research project which involves the study of documents preserved in the provider institutions and need to have a direct access
to these documents and materials to develop their researches or to complete
their analysis;
2) Experts in historical religious studies who, during the development of their
research, need to integrate their knowledge with those available through the
access to the materials preserved in transnational access providers;
3) Curators of special collections and archives, who need to enlarge their knowledge in dealing with documents concerning historical religious studies to
manage other collections of documents.
Criteria:
• Each proposal submitted for ReIReS transnational access should aim to:
• Increase the knowledge in a specific area of historical religious studies;
• Strengthen the interdisciplinary approach within historical religious studies;
• Foster international cooperation in developing research activities in the
domain of historical religious studies.

NOTES AND COMMENTS

195

A Peer Review Committee selects and ranks the submitted proposals according to
rules, which are set to be consistent with the Grant Agreement of ReIReS. Within
the selection and ranking procedure priority is given to:
• Projects with a large and deep European impact;
• Projects having a woman group leader or principal investigator, or the gender
balance within the group members is to be fulfilled, or which include specific
focus on gender issues;
• Projects leaded by young scholars who aim to significantly improve their
training in humanities and particularly in historical religious studies;
• Projects proposed by users who belong to countries where no research infrastructure or research platform in historical religious studies exists;
• Projects proposed by users who have no previous access to ReIReS transnational access or to the participant provider’s facilities;
• Projects that require a strong integration between the access to special collections and the use of digital tools.
The selection and rankings are always made on the basis of the following criteria:
• Research quality of the proposal;
• Originality of the research activity;
• Level of expertise of the potential user;
• Potential innovation of the research project.
Time Slot for the Second Access Period: April–September 2019.
Future Calls: There will be calls for applications every six months until July 2020.
The next call (third call) will be open from 17.06.2019 until 04.08.2019. The third
access period will start September 2019.
Helpdesk: For questions concerning the holdings and services apply to the point of
contact of the relevant facility. For questions concerning the technicality of the submission procedure apply to: Alexandra Nusser M. A. email: nusser@uni-mainz.de.
Contact: contactus@reires.eu

PUBLICATIONS
The third number for 2017 (Volume LIII) of the Rivista di Storia e Letteratura
Religiosa is devoted to Lactantius. Eleven articles (pp. 387–650) treat “Lactance,
par contours et détours.”
“La Collectio Avellana fraTardoantico e Alto Medioevo” is the theme of the
first number for 2018 (Volume 39) of Cristianesimo nella storia, which is edited by
Rita Lizzi Testa. The editor has provided the first article, “La Collectio Avellana: il
suo compilatore e i suoi fruitori, fra Tardoantico e Alto Medioevo” (pp. 9–37). The
other articles are divided into two sections, viz., (1) “La formazione della Collectio
Avellana”: Dominic Moreau, “Le processus de compilation des collections canon-

196

NOTES AND COMMENTS

iques italiennes pendant l’Antiquité” (pp. 41–70); Alexander W. H. Evers, “The
Collectio Avellana: An ‘Eccentric’ Canonical Collection?” (pp. 71–91); Andrea
Antonio Verardi, “Il Liber Pontificalis romano e le collezioni di diritto canonico
altomedievali di area italica” (pp. 93–116); Pierre Jaillette, “Un nouveau type de
recueil: le Code des lois” (pp. 117–36); Josep Vilella Masana, “Collecciones falsamente atribuidas a un concilio” (pp. 137–75); Philippe Blaudeau, “Collections du
schisme acacien” (pp. 177–96); Paola Paolucci, “ Un’ipotesi sulla formazione della
Collectio Avellana. Dai due manoscritti Vaticani à rebours” (pp. 197–216); (2) “La
lettura della Collectio Avellana nell’Alto Medioevo”: Raffaella Crociani and Marco
Palma, “Minima marginalia. Qualche osservazione sui due più antichi manoscritti
della Collectio Avellana” (pp. 219–47); Nicolangelo D’Acunto, “La ricezione della
Collectio Avellana alla fine del secolo XI tra il milieu di Matilde di Canossa e quello
dell’antipapa Clemente III” (pp. 249–61); and Giulia Marconi, “La Collectio Avellana nell’XI–XII secolo: attualità di un testo tardoantico nell’Alto Medioevo” (pp.
263–97).
Medieval Prosopography: History and Collective Biography has made its volume
for 2018 (33) a “special issue” in honor of Joel R. Rosenthal with the title “Those
Who Worked, Those Who Fought, and Those Who Prayed.” Under the last heading are “The Remarkable Will of David Fyvyan (d. 1451)” by Martha Carlin (pp.
137–51); “From Bologna to Brecon: The Cosmopolitan World of a Pre-Reformation Archdeacon [William Walter],” by Ralph Griffiths (pp. 153–65); “Richard
Caudray (ca. 1390–1458): Fifteenth-Century Churchman, Academic, and Ruthless Politician,” by Shannon McSheffrey (pp. 167–79); “A Community of the Dead
in Late Medieval London,” by Christian Steer (pp. 181–94); and “The Ownership
of Books amongst the London Rectors in the Late Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” by Robert A. Wood (pp. 195–207).
Eight articles on the theme “Zwischen Charisma und Leben: Klara von Assisi
und ihre Schwestern in der aktuellen Forschung” are published in Volume 80 (2017)
of Wissenschaft und Weisheit: Werner Maleczek, “Zwanzig Jahre danach: Ist die
Authentizität von Klaras Testament eine erledigte Frage?” (pp. 7–68); Paul Zahner,
O.F.M., “Die Quellen des Ordens der Armen Schwestern der Klara von Assisi
(Klararegel) mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Lebensform Hugos (Hugolinregel)” (pp. 69–86); Maria Pia Alberzoni, “Das Leben von Pönitenten vor und nach
der Verklösterlichung: hospitia warden zu monasteria” (pp. 87–104); Niklaus Kuster,
O.F.M.Cap., “Klaras Vernetzung mit Armen Schwestern. Blicke auf den Damiansorden in Europa 1253” (pp. 105–67); Leonhard Lehmann, O.F.M.Cap., “Spirituelle Motive für die Klausur bei Franziskus und Klara von Assisi” (pp. 168–201);
Pietro Maranesi, O.F.M.Cap., “Le sorelle povere di San Damiano e l’ordine claustrale di San Damiano: Una tensione documentaria tra due progetti identitari” (pp.
202–54); Gerard Pieter Freeman, “Gitter und Pforte. Die Instrumente der Klausur
in den Damianitinnenregeln des 13. Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von San Damiano” (pp. 255–88); and Martina Kreider-Kos, “’Immer hat Gott
dich beschützt wie eine Mutter ihr Kind’. Das Motiv der Mütterlichkeit in Leben,
Schriften und Zeugnissen der hl. Klara von Assisi” (pp. 289–316).

NOTES AND COMMENTS

197

Various aspects of “Conversions: Medieval and Early Modern” are studied in
the issue for September, 2018 (Volume 48), of the Journal of Medieval and Early
Modern Studies. David Aers and Sarah Beckwith provide an introduction (pp. 433–
34), which is followed by “Pastoral Care by Debate: The Challenge of Lay Multiplicity,” by Nicolette Zeeman (pp. 435–59); “Claudius and the Robber Apologize:
The Variety of Speech Act in Protestant and Catholic Repentance,” by Andrew
Escobedo (pp. 461–89); “The Crusading Romance in Early Modern England:
Converting the Past in Berner’s Huon of Bordeau and Johnson’s Seven Champions of
Christendom,” by Lee Manion (pp. 491–517); “The Sanctity of St. Margaret
Clitherow: Conversion and Incorruptibility,” by Ryan McDermott (pp. 519–52);
“The Family of Love and the Making of English Revolutionary Religion: The Confession and ‘Conversions’ of Giles Creech,” by David R. Como (pp. 553–98); and
“Devil’s Due: The Logic of Conversion in Descartes’s Méditations,” by James
Wetzel (pp. 599–616).
A dossier titled “Silencio femenino y quietismo barroco: Miguel de Molinos y
las mujeres,” edited by Rosa María Alabrús Iglesias, is published in the issue for
autumn, 2018 (Volume 93), of Jerónimo Zurita, Revista de Historia. The four articles are “El debate sobre el quietismo en Cataluña. El caso de Eulalia de la Cruz
(1669–1725),” by Rosa María Alabrús Iglesias (pp. 13–25); “Miguel de Molinos,
embajador del Reino de Valencia en Roma (1663–1684): Cartas y memoriales
inéditos,” by Emilio Callado Estela (pp. 27–59); “La formación y la espiritualidad
de Miguel de Molinos,” by Francisco Pons Fuster (pp. 61–85); and “El molinismo
del siglo XVII: trayectoria, arraigo en el mundo femenino y lecturas controvertidas,” by Alfonso Esponera Cerdán, O.P. (pp. 87–118).
In 2013 the Royal Society of Edinburgh provided funding to establish a
collaborative research project called “Scottish Religious Cultures Network,” the
purpose of which is to support the study of Scottish religious history and cultures. In August, 2015, in co-operation with the Scottish Church History Society, a conference was held on “The History of Scottish Episcopacy” at St.
Mungo’s Museum of Religious Life and Art in Glasgow. Some of the papers
presented at that event have been published in Volume XLVII (2018) of the
Records of the Scottish Church History Society: Jamie McDougall, “Episcopacy and
the National Covenant” (pp. 3–30); Michael B. Riordan, “The Episcopalians
and the Promotion of Mysticism in North-East Scotland” (pp. 31–56); David
M. Bertie, “Episcopacy and Presbyterianism in Eighteenth-Century Longside,
Aberdeenshire” (pp. 57–73); Kieran German, “Non-Jurors, Liturgy, and Jacobite Commitment, 1718–1746” (pp. 74-99); Alexander Nimmo, “Archibald
Campbell: Aberdeen’s Absentee Bishop?” (pp. 100–27); John Reuben Davies,
“The Brothers Forbes and the Liturgical Books of Medieval Scotland: Historical
Scholarship and Liturgical Controversy in the Nineteenth-Century Scottish
Episcopal Church” (pp. 128-42); Nicholas Taylor, “Liturgy and Theological
Method in the Scottish Episcopal Church” (pp. 143-54); and Rowan Strong,
“The Missions of the Scottish Episcopal Church in the Nineteenth Century”
(pp. 155–86).

198

NOTES AND COMMENTS

A “Special Forum on Christianity and Human Rights” is published in the
Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 79, Number 3 (July, 2018). After an introduction by Udi Greenberg and Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins (pp. 407–09) are “Christian Human Rights in the French Revolution,” by Dan Edelstein (pp. 411–26);
“American Protestants and the Era of Anti-racist Human Rights,” by Gene
Zubovich (pp. 427–43); “Theology and the Politics of Christian Human Rights,”
by Sarah Shortall (pp. 445–60); “Catholics, Protestants, and the Tortured Path to
Religious Liberty,” by Udi Greenberg (pp. 461–79); and “An Anti-totalitarian
Saint: The Canonization of Edith Stein,” by Paul Hanebrink (pp. 481–95).
Economists’ views of theology and religion are studied in five articles published in the issue of the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought for
August, 2017 (Volume 24): Sergio Cremaschi, ”Theological themes in Ricardo’s
papers and correspondence” (pp. 784–808); Pierre Musso, “Religion and political
economy in Saint-Simon” (pp. 809–27); Philippe Steiner, “Religion and sociological critique of political economy: Altruism and gift” (pp. 876–906); Keith Tribe,
“Henry Sidgwick, moral order, and utilitarianism” (pp. 907–30); and Daniela Donnini Macciò, “Pigou on philosophy and religion” (pp. 931–57).
“Culture wars” are the topics of several articles in the issue for July, 2018
(Volume 53) of the Journal of Contemporary History: “Introduction: Comparing
Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Culture Wars,” by Todd H. Weir (pp. 489–
502); “Violent Culture Wars: Religion and Revolution in Mexico, Russia and
Spain in the Interwar Period,” by Julio de la Cueva (pp. 503–23); “Pathologia religiosa: Medicine and the Anti-religious Movement in the Early Soviet Union,” by
Igor J. Polianski (pp. 524–49); “Campaigning against Bolshevism: Catholic Action
in Late Weimar Germany,” by Klaus Große Kracht (pp. 550–73); “Difficult (Re-)
Alignments—Comparative Perspective on Social Democracy and Religion from
Late-nineteenth century to Interwar Germany and Britain,” by Stefan Berger (pp.
574–96); “Hitler’s Worldview and the Interwar Kulturkampf,” by Todd H. Weir
(pp. 597–621); “European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and AntiTotalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?” by Paul Hanebrink (pp. 622–
43); and “The Movement of Catholic Communists, 1937–45,” by Daniela Saresella
(pp. 644–61).
An editorial entitled “The theory and practice of ecumenism: Christian global
governance and the search for world order” by Elisabeth Engel, James Kennedy,
and Justin Reynolds (pp. 157–64) introduces six articles in the issue for July, 2018
(Volume 13) of the Journal of Global History: Albert Wu, “In the shadow of empire:
Josef Schmidlin and Protestant-Catholic ecumenism before the Second World
War” (pp. 165–87); Christopher Stroop, “’A Christian solution to international
tension’: Nikolai Berdyaev, the American YMCA, and Russian Orthodox influence on Western Christian anti-communism, c. 1905–60)” (pp. 188–208); Elisabeth Engel, “The ecumenical origins of pan-Africanism: Africa and the ‘Southern
Negro’ in the International Missionary Council’s global vision of Christian indigenization in the 1920s” (pp. 209–29); Justin Reynolds, “From Christian anti-impe-

NOTES AND COMMENTS

199

rialism to postcolonial Christianity: M. M. Thomas and the ecumenical theology of
communism in the 1940s and 1950s” (pp. 230–51); Bastiaan Bouwman, “From
religious freedom to social justice: the human rights engagement of the ecumenical
movement from the 1940s to the 1970s” (pp. 252–73); and Annegreth Schilling,
“Between context and conflict: the ‘boom’ of Latin American Protestantism in the
ecumenical movement (1955–75)” (pp. 274–93).
A “graphic novel” in the large format of a colorful comic book relates the history of the Church in California and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The text is
by Corinna Laughlin and Maria Laughlin, and the illustrator is Jean-Marie Cuzin.
The two volumes, one in English and the other in Spanish, have been published by
the Éditions du Signe in Strasbourg in 2018: Faith in the Southland, based on the
research of Msgr. Francis J. Weber: The Story of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the
Shepherds Who Have Labored There, and Fe en la Tierra del Sur, basado en un studio
por Monseñor Francis J. Weber: La Historia de la Arquidiócesis de Los Angeles y de los
Pastores Que Trabajaron Ahí (pp. 56 each).
The 125th anniversary of Concordia University St. Paul is celebrated in the
issue for fall, 2018 (Volume 91) of Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly. Aspects
of the history of the university are treated in six articles.
The fiftieth anniversary of the Second General Conference of the Episcopate
of Latin America, which was held in Medellín, Colombia, in the summer of 1968,
provides the subject of a dozen articles published in the issue for January–April,
2018 (Volume 78, number 309, of the Revista Eclesiástica Brasileira.

200

NOTES AND COMMENTS

OBITUARY NOTICE
JERZY KŁOCZOWSKI
(1924–2017)

Jerzy Kłoczowski, a distinguished Polish historian, patriot, politician, and a
long-time Corresponding Fellow of the American Catholic Historical Association,
died on December 2, 2017. Professor Kłoczowski was born on December 29, 1924
in the village of Bogdany in northern Mazovia and as a teen-ager became a combatant in the Second World War. He was a member of the military Armed Resistance, and eventually of the Armia Krajowa (Home Army, the dominant Polish
resistance movement against the Nazi occupation). He fought valiantly in the
Warsaw uprising of 1944, in which he was wounded, losing his right arm. Following the war, he enrolled at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and later at
Nicholas Copernicus University in Toruń, where he earned his doctoral degree
under the direction of Karol Górski in 1950. Professor Górski introduced him to
church history and religious culture, especially the history of the Dominican Order.
Beginning in the fall of 1950 Professor Kłoczowski taught at the Catholic
University in Lublin, now St. John Paul II Catholic University, where he remained
until his death. As Professor of History at Lublin he was a revered teacher and
mentor and an untiring creator of scholarly organizations. He eventually became
the founder and director of the Institute of East Central Europe (Instytut
Środkowo-Wschodnia) at the university and held an extraordinarily broad range of
other national and international appointments. These included Chair of the Polish
Commission of the International Commission for Comparative Ecclesiastical History (Commission internationale d’histoire ecclésiastique comparée), Vice-Chair of
that international commission, and member of the Executive Board of UNESCO.
He also lectured widely during the Communist period and after at institutions in

NOTES AND COMMENTS

201

Poland and abroad, including the United States, and received numerous honorary
degrees and civilian honors in Poland and other countries.
Kłoczowski’s scholarship was legendary: nearly a thousand publications
devoted to church history, Dominican and Franciscan history in Poland and abroad,
the history of the Slavonic world and east central Europe, and the character of European civilization. Readers of The Catholic Historical Review may be especially familiar
with his non-Polish language publications, including some of his collected articles,
La Pologne dans l’Eglise médiévale (Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate Variorum,
1993) and his magisterial A History of Polish Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), the latter of which is based upon his Dzieje polskiego
chrześcijaństwa, 2 vols. (Paris: Éditions du Dialogue, 1991, but various other editions). Less well known, unfortunately (there has not yet been a translation), is his
influential book Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji
chrześcijańskiej średniowiecza (The Younger Europe. East Central Europe in the
Circle of Medieval Christian Civilization) (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut
Wydawniczy, 1998), for it places the region of east central Europe in a European
context that has not yet been fully appreciated in western scholarship. The foregoing
mentions do not fully reflect the very substantial impact of Professor Kłoczowski’s
contributions to Polish church history, for church history in general, and for the history of the mendicant orders. He contributed, nurtured, and vigorously promoted all
of these in everything he did. He fully deserves the high recognition as a major ecclesiastical historian that he has received in Poland and elsewhere.
In the 1980s Kłoczowski became an active member of Solidarity, the social
and eventual political movement that facilitated the end of Communism in Poland
and that initiated the process leading in the Communist bloc as a whole to the end
of Communism. He stood for election to the newly recreated Polish Senate (the
upper house of the legislature) and was elected, eventually serving on the Commission for Foreign Affairs and also as a representative of the Polish parliament to the
Council of Europe. Efforts in 2004 and after to smear him as having been an
informant to the Communist regime were vigorously and successfully disputed by
academic, political, and cultural leaders as slanderously partisan and derived from
former security officers. Kłoczowski’s reputation as a person and scholar remained
unblemished. Active until he died—though he could not travel as widely as
before—Kłoczowski’s influence was powerful, and he was honored by several
important Festschrifts. Those who knew him personally found him generously
warm and supportive, a humane colleague who reflected the deeply religious values
he presented in his scholarship. Those who knew only his scholarship also shared
in these things. Few there have been who have made the lasting contributions to
the categories identified in the opening lines of this obituary that are the legacy of
Professor Kłoczowski.
University of Southern California, Emeritus

PAUL W. KNOLL

Periodical Literature
GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS
Gehalt und Gestalt des christlichen Martyriums im 20./21. Jahrhundert—Eine
historisch-theologische Erörterung. Helmut Moll. Forum Katholische Theologie, 34 (4, 2018), 241–61.
Il Consiglio Ecumenico delle Chiese: storia dello sviluppo e dell’evoluzione delle
idee. Giovanni Cereti. Studi Ecumenici, XXXVI (Jan.–June, 2018), 33–48.
La Chiesa ortodossa: partecipazione e contributo al Consiglio Ecumenico delle
Chiese a settant’anni dalla sua fondazione. Speranze per l’unità e problematiche per il futuro. Gennadios di Sassima. Studi Ecumenici, XXXVI (Jan.–
June, 2018), 101–13.
Style in Substance: Origins of John W. O’Malley’s Contribution to the Interpretation of Vatican II. Catherine E. Clifford. Theological Studies, 79 (Dec., 2018),
745–60.
A New Political Pacifism: Churches in the Wake of the Great War. William R.
Marty. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 30 (1/2, 2018), 63–77.
Kirche zwischen den Zeiten. Ein theologischer Rückblick auf das Jahr 1968. Peter
Neuner. Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 69 (3, 2018), 266–78.
Les Fêtes des Martyrs dans les livres issus de la réforme liturgique de Vatican II:
Théologie du martyre. Philippe Beitia. Ephemerides Liturgicae, CXXXII (July–
Sept., 2018), 257–79.
The Advent and Christmastides Orations of the Missale Parisiense 1481–1738.
Anthony Ward. Ephemerides Liturgicae, CXXXII (July–Sept., 2018), 280–346.
Paolo VI, il papa del Concilio e della riforma nella comunione sei Santi. Maurizio
Barba. Ephemerides Liturgicae, CXXXII (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 387–94.
Les Mémoires liturgiques des martyrs inscrites au Calendrier romain générale entre
1979 et 1995. Philippe Beitia. Ephemerides Liturgicae, CXXXII (Oct.–Dec.,
2018), 395–435.
The Octave of Corpus Christi in the Cluniac Missal from 1493 Onwards. Anthony
Ward. Ephemerides Liturgicae, CXXXII (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 448–92.
La biblioteca del monasterio de Montserrat de Madrid: procedencia del fondo
antiguo. Miguel C. Vivancos. Studia Monastica, 60 (1, 2018), 181–200.
La recherche cistercienne en France (1991-2015). Benoît Chauvin. Revue d’histoire
de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June, 2018), 117–40.
202

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

203

ANCIENT
Les peintures murales de la domus ecclesiae de Doura Europos: le premier cycle narratif chrétien. Emanuela Fogliadini. Revue des sciences religieuses, 92 (Oct.–
Dec., 2018), 451–97.
San Martino di Tours di Fronte a un Culto Contaminato. Per una nuova interpretazione del capitolo 11 della biografia sulpiciana. Fabio Ruggiero. Rivista
Liturgica, 105 (4, 2018), 79–95.
Gélase de Césarée. Un historien ecclésiastique du IVe siècle. Martin Wallraff.
Revue des sciences religieuses, 92 (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 499–519.
Damasus and the derelict relics. Nicola Denzey Lewis. Early Medieval Europe, 26
(Nov., 2018), 417–39.
An Iconic Odd Couple: The Hagiographic Rehabilitation of Epiphanius and John
Chrysostom. Young Richard Kim. Church History, 87 (Dec., 2018), 981–
1002.
A Swarm from the Blessed Hive: The Social Networks of the Jura Monasteries.
Yaniv Fox. Revue Bénédictine, 128 (Dec., 2018), 252–80
Retracing the ‘Art of Arts and Science of Sciences’ from Gregory the Great to
Philo of Alexandria. Andrew Hofer, O.P., and Alan Piper, O.P. Journal of the
History of Ideas, 79 (Oct., 2018), 507–26.

MEDIEVAL
Occa of Hexham through the eyes of the Venerable Bede. Paull Hilliard. Early
Medieval Europe, 26 (Nov., 2018), 440–61.
Die “Pippinische Schenkung”: Neue Lösungsansätze für ein altes Problem. Sebastian Scholz. Historische Zeitschrift, 301 (Dec., 2018), 635–54.
Les évêques carolingiens, fideles regis et prelati: autour du cas “lorrain” (816–vers
925). Michèle Gaillard. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June,
2018), 5–32.
Die Karolinger und das Kanonikerstift am Großmünster in Zürich. Martin
Gabathuler and Maria Wittmer-Butsch. Francia, 45 (2018), 1–26.
Hrabanus Maurus’ De institutione clericorum: Teaching, Theology, Liturgy and Liberal Arts in Carolingian Germany. Ana B. Sánchez-Prieto. Studia Monastica,
60 (1, 2018), 27–62.
Pseudo-Isidore’s Ennodius. Eric Knibbs. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 74 (1, 2018), 1–52.
Aristocratic Exploitation of Ecclesiastical Property in the Ninth Century. The Case
of the villa Gendt. Erik Goosmann. Francia, 45 (2018), 27–59.

204

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

Ein faszinierender Einblick in die Frühphase christlich-islamischer Begegnungen.
Bišr ibn al-Sirrī und Mount Sinai Arabic Codex 151. Christian Blumenthal.
Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 69 (3, 2018), 314–33.
A defence against the arrows of the disturbance to come: royal protection and the
consolidation of monastic reform under Count Arnulf I of Flanders (918–65).
Brigitte Meijns. Early Medieval Europe, 26 (Nov., 2018), 486–517.
Pilgrims, Merchants, and Coins: A Santiago de Compostela Case Study. Mariele
Valci. Nottingham Medieval Studies, 62 (2018), 83–110.
Behind Hartker’s Antiphoner: Neglected Fragments of the Earliest Sankt Gallen
Tonary. Henry Parkes. Early Music History, 37 (Oct., 2018), 183–246.
Les hôpitaux de Rennes et leurs cimitières (XIe–XIe siècles): gestion de la pauvreté,
de la maladie er de la mort. Laura Gagnard. Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de
l’Ouest, 125 (4, 2018), 7–48.
“The Clerk of Rome”: A Miracle of the Virgin before the Twelfth-Century
Reforms. Nathan J. Ristuccia. Revue Bénédictine, 128 (Dec., 2018), 327–346.
La rédaction de cartulaires et la réception des actes pontificaux en Provence (fin de
XIe–début XIIe siècle): quelles interactions? Jean-Baptiste Renault. Francia,
45 (2018), 61–84.
The Ministerium Naturae: Natural Law in the Exegesis and Theological Discourse
at Paris between 1160 and 1215. Riccardo Saccenti. Journal of the History of
Ideas, 79 (Oct., 2018), 527–45.
Public Debate, Propaganda, and Public Opinion in the Becket Controversy. Leidulf Melve. Viator, 48 (3, 2017), 79–102.
Why are there Two Medieval Copies of the Holy Sepulchre in Pisa? A Comparative Analysis of San Sepulcro and the Baptistery. Neta B. Bodner. Viator, 48
(3, 2017), 103–24.
The General Court of the Agenais Revisited: An Innovation of the Albigensian
Crusade. Claire Taylor. Nottingham Medieval Studies, 62 (2018), 61–81.
The Dynamism of a Crusade Encyclical: Pope Honorius III and Iustus Dominus
(1223). Thomas W. Smith. Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, 74
(1, 2018), 111–42.
Antonio conosce e utilizza i testi di Francesco d’Assisi. Una citazione esplicita dell’ammonizione XIX nel sermone per la festa del Battista. Alessandro Ratti. Il
Santo, LVIII (3, 2018), 391–99.
The Moral Compass and Mortal Slumber: Divine and Human Reason in the Bibles
Moralisées. Antonia Martínez Ruipérez. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, LXXXI (2018), 1–33.
Leyenda, historia y memoria en el monasterio de San Millán de la Cogolla (siglo
XIII): la Traslatio Sancti Emiliani. Isabel Ilzarbe López. Studia Monastica, 60
(1, 2018), 63–118.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

205

Hagiographie et mise en prose au XIIIe siècle: l’exemple de Barlaam et Josaphat.
Adélaïde Lambert. Le Moyen Âge,CXXIII (3–4, 2017), 507–26.
La vision spirituelle dans l’espace corporel et le pouvoir performatif du langage dans
la biographie mystique de Christina de Hane. Racha Kirakosian. Le Moyen
Âge,CXXIII (3–4, 2017), 589–607.
Albertano da Brescia e il benessere spirituale e civile nei comuni italiani: i sermoni
ai confratelli causidici e notai (metà XIII secolo). Marina Gazzini. Archivo
Storico Italiano, CLXXVI (4, 2018), 615–44.
Produkte der päpstlichen Kanzlei als Quellen der Universitätsgeschichtsschreibung: das Beispiel Rom. Brigide Schwarz. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 126 (1, 2018), 1–33.
Mental disorders in commentaries by the late medieval theologians Richard of
Middleton, John Duns Scotus, William Ockham and Gabriel Biel on Peter
Lombard’s Sentences. Vera Hirvonen. History of Psychiatry, 29 (Dec., 2018),
409–23.
Istruzioni per diventare figli e discepoli. Orientamenti di due madri spirituali
francescane: Angela da Foligno e Camilla Battista da Varano. Marzia Ceschia.
Il Santo, LVIII (3, 2018), 363–89.
Transmitting the Memory of a Medieval Heretic: Early Modern French Historians
on Marguerite Porete. Danielle C. Dubois. French Historical Studies, 41 (Oct.,
2018), 579–610.
An Egyptian Hermit and Italian Laity: Domenico Cavalca, OP (d. 1341) and the
Cult of the Desert Father Onuphrius. Manu Radhakrishnan. Aevum, XCII
(May–Aug., 2018), 309–92.
The tombs of the Palaiologan emperors. Nicholas Melvani. Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies, 42 (Oct., 2018), 237–60.
Dominicans and Demons: Possession, Temptation, and Reform in the Cult of Vincent Ferrer. Laura Ackerman Smoller. Speculum, 93 (Oct., 2018), 1010–47.
Inspiration and Imagination: Visionary Authorship in the Early Manuscripts of the
Revelations of Birgitta of Sweden. F. Thomas Luongo. Speculum, 93 (Oct.,
2018), 1102–50.
Phantoms of Emptiness: The Space of the Imaginary in Late Medieval Art. Elina
Gertsman. Art History, 41 (Nov., 2018), 800–37.
Le pontifical d’Amédée de Talaru et les débuts de Jean Bapteur. Mireia Castaño.
Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXX (2, 2018), 353-61.
Dorde Pelinović: the Abbot of the Abbey of the Virgin of Ratac (Montenegro).
Tatjana Koprivica. Aevum, XCII (May–Aug., 2018), 491–508.
Synchronising the Hours: A Fifteenth-Century Wooden Volvelle from the Basilica
of San Zeno, Verona. Sarah Griffin. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, LXXXI (2018), 35–69.

206

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

SIXTEENTH CENTURY
Wolsey’s Own Accord. Paul Lay. History Today, 68 (Oct., 2018), 3.
Martín Lutero (1483-1546). Nuevo paradigma de interpretación, su mundo y su obra.
Isaac González Marcos. Revista Agustiniana, LVIII (Sept.–Dec., 2017), 311–57.
The doctrine of the Sabbath in the Edwardian Reformation. Stephen Tong. Historical Research, 91 (Nov., 2018), 647–61.
Tyndale, Erasmus, and the Early English Reformation. Mark Rankin. Erasmus of
Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 38 (2, 2018), 135–70.
La fascination de l’ordre. Martin Bucer et le virage de la ville d’Empire Ulm en
faveur de la Réforme (1531). Berndt Hamm. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie
Religieuses, 98 (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 393–414.
Orthodoxie und Reformation. Karl Christian Felmy. Ostkirchliche Studien, 66
(2017), 358–71.
Ritratto di Marcello Cervini en orientaliste (con precisazioni alle vicende di Petrus
Damascenus, Mosè di Mārdīn ed Heliodorus Niger). Seconda parte. Giacomo
Cardinali. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXXX (2, 2018), 325–43.
Entre politique et religion: la martyrologie au XVIe siècle. Camille Collin. Revue
d’histoire de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June, 2018), 33–55.
A Religion for the People? Economic change, languages, and ethnicity in the sixteenth-century Slovene Reformation. Regina Pörtner. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 126 (1, 2018), 53–72.
Basculement confessionnel et engagement politique au début des guerres de Religion: le cas d’Antoine de Croÿ, prince de Porcien. Tomaso Pastucci. Revue
Historique, No. 687 (July, 2018), 593–618.
Memorial del obispo de Astorga a Felipe II sobre la celebración de concilios
provinciales según el Concilio de Trento (Manuscrito 6035 de la Biblioteca
Nacional de Madrid.) Lorenzo Martínez Ángel. La Ciudad de Dios, CCXXXI
(May–Aug., 2018), 321–34.
Le paradis en Suisse? Élaboration d’une “cartographie messianique” autour de l’entrée d’Élisabeth d’Autriche à Paris le 29 mars 1571. Alexandre Y. Haran.
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, 98 (Oct.-Dec., 2018), 415-42.
In falso veritas: Carlo Sigonio’s Forged Challenge to Ecclesiastical Censorship and
Italia Jurisdictionalism. Guido Bartolucci. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, LXXXI (2018), 211–37.
Sidney’s Legal Patronage and the International Protestant Cause. Timothy D.
Crowley. Renaissance Quarterly, 71 (Winter, 2018), 1298–1350.
Gedächtnis des Heilswerks Christi. Ein frühes Zeugnis für den “Engel des Herrn”
im “kurtrierischen” Katechismus 1589/90. Andreas Heinz. Trierer theologische
Zeitschrift, 127 (3, 2018), 205–25.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

207

Rites of Reversion: Ceremonial Memory and Community in the Funeral Services
of Philip II in the Netherlands (1598). Steven Thiry. Renaissance Quarterly, 71
(Winter, 2018), 1391–1429.

SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
“In the execution of his office”: lay officials and the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline in Scotland, c. 1600–1660. Chris R. Langley. Seventeenth Century, 33
(Dec., 2018), 497–512.
Alix Le Clerc: Une mystique face au sommeil. Philippe Martin. Revue d’Histoire et
de Philosophie Religieuses, 98 (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 443–61.
Un puente cultural entre oriente lejano y occidente cercano. IV Centenario de fray
Juan González de Mendoza (1618–2018). José Rodríguez Díez, O.S.A. La
Ciudad de Dios, CCXXXI (Sept.–Dec., 2018), 577–602.
Les études dans la Congrégation de Saint-Maur (1). Christophe Vuillaume. Collectanea Cisterciensia, 80 (4, 2018), 384–98.
La vita quotidiana dei cappuccini nell’Africa Congo-angolana del Seicento. Esperienze missionarie francescane. Angelo D’Ambrosio. Laurentianum, 59 (1-2,
2018), 49–78.
Gabriel de Chinon, missionnaire dans l’Empire safavide (1647–1668). Jean-Pierre
Mahé. Journal des Savants (July–Dec., 2018), 357–419.
Interpreting the event: baptism, networks and polemic in Commonwealth England. Alison Searle. Seventeenth Century, 33 (Dec., 2018), 513–29.
Un foyer de recherches sur Pascal et Port-Royal. Maria Vita Romeo. XVII e Siècle,
70 (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 663–72.
De la rupture familiale et sociale à la reconsruction d’une appurtenance religieuse:
les Nouvelles Catholiques de Rouen, de 1685 à 1787. Aude Loriaud. Revue
d’histoire de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June, 2018), 57–76.
Landscape and Iconicity: Proskynetaria of the Holy Land from the Ottoman
Period. Pnina Ared. Art Bulletin, 100 (Dec., 2018), 62–80.
Una mistica dimenticata: Suor Febronia Ferdinanda Ansalone (1656–1718). Vincenzo Cuffaro. Antonianum, XCIII (July–Sept., 2018), 461–90.
L’investiture de l’évêque de Strasbourg à la cour de Vienne en 1723. Kaori
Yasukata. Francia, 45 (2018), 163–76.

NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
(EASTERN HEMISPHERE)
Tra le inedite carte di Bernardo Gonzati (1808–1852). Vita, opera, interessi dello
storico della basilica antoniana. Sofia Stefani. Il Santo, LVIII (3, 2018), 335–62.

208

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

Le refus de nomination de chanoines dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle. François
Hou. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June, 2018), 77–95.
Leben und Wohnen im Pfarrhaus. Ein Blick in die Geschichte des Bistums Trier
und eine Anregung in postsynodalen Zeiten. Bernhard Schneider and Frederik Simon. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift, 127 (3, 2018), 181–204.
Entre la France et l’Angleterre: la campagne catholique pour la conversion de l’Angleterre, des années 1830 jusqu’à la Grande Guerre. Olivier Rota. Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, 104 (Jan.–June, 2018), 91–115.
Pater Jordan in Rom (1878-1915). Im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ursprung, Wandel
und Anpassung. Peter van Meijl and Martin Kolozs. Römische Quartalschrift,
113 (1–2, 2018), 49–63.
The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party and the Assassination Attempts against
Patriarch Khoren Ashekian and Maksudzade Simon Bey in 1894. Varak Ketsemanian. International Journal of the Middle East Studies, 50 (Nov., 2018),
735–55.
Social mobility among Christian Africans: evidence from Anglican marriage registers in Uganda, 1895–2011. Meier zu Selhausen et al. Economic History
Review, 71 (Nov., 2018), 1291–1321.
‘An admirable little book written by a lady’: Emily Williams and the recording and
restoration of stained glass in late Victorian England. Rachel Koopmans.
Women’s History Review, 27 (Dec., 2018), 1123–51.
Cristianesimo e nazionalismo in Giappone. Dalla fine dell’epoca Meiji alla “Guerra
dei qundici anni.” Angelina Volpe. Urbaniana University Journal, LXXI (3,
2018), 143–83.
Paul Maria Baumgarten über die caritative Arbeit seiner Mutter Lina Baumgarten.
Isa-Maria Betz. Römische Quartalschrift, 113 (1–2, 2018), 64–129.
Borders That Divide: Education and Religion in Ghana and Togo Since Colonial
Times. Denis Cogneau and Alexander Moradi. Journal of Economic History, 74
(Sept., 2018), 694–729.
Los inicios de la persecución religiosa del siglo XX en España: los sucesos de mayo
de 1931. Ismael Arevalillo García, O.S.A. La Ciudad de Dios, CCXXXI
(May–Aug., 2018), 335–64.
Razón y Fe, testigo de la Gran Guerra (1914–1918) e intérprete de la paz. Alfredo
Verdoy, SJ. Razón y Fe, 278 (Nov.–Dec., 2018), 301–10.
The relief of Belgian refugees in the archdiocese of Glasgow during the First World
War: ‘A Crusade of Christianity.’ Kieran D. Taylor. Innes Review, 69 (Nov.,
2018), 147–64.
Apparizioni e “visioni” private: ricognizione teologica alla luce del caso di Fátima
(1917–2017). Gianluigi Pasquale. Città di Vita, LXIII (Nov.–Dec., 2018),
592–602.

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

209

Umbruch. Der Verlag J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) um und nach 1918. Konrad
Hammann. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 115 (Sept., 2018), 295–327.
Buonaiuti, La Piana, De Stefano. Carteggi tra modernisti per una teologia della
storia [III]. Salvatore Corso. Laurentianum, 59 (1–2, 2018), 79–299.
Religion in the Early Nazi Milieu: Towards a Greater Understanding of ‘Racist Culture.’ Samuel Koehne. Journal of Contemporary History 53 (Oct., 2018), 667–91.
The Thuringian Volkskirchenbund, the Nazi Revolution, and the Völkisch Conceptions
of Christianity. Heath Spencer. Church History, 87 (Dec., 2018), 1091–1118.
Die Enzyklika Pius’ XI. “Mit brennender Sorge” (14. März 1937) im Spiegel der
Glaubenszeugen der NS-Zeit. Helmut Moll. Römische Quartalschrift, 113 (1–
2, 2018), 130–50.
Frère Christian de Chergé, ou, Les quatre saisons de la vie d’un moine, missionnaires de l’amitié. Marie-Benoît Bernard. Collectanea Cisterciensia, 80 (4,
2018), 415–31.
Trois lettres du frère Michel Fleury (1968-1969). Frère Michel, déjà “conseiller
spirituel.” Étienne Baudry. Collectanea Cisterciensia, 80 (3, 2018), 303–14.
Die ersten “Erscheinungen” der “Gospa” in Medjugorje. Die kirchliche Bedeutung
von Fatima. Manfred Hauke. Forum Katholische Theologie, 34 (4, 2018), 262–87.

AMERICAN AND CANADIAN
“Two Suns in One Firmament”: John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and the 1655 New
Haven Sodomy Statute. Sandra Slater. Church History, 87 (Dec., 2018), 1003–
28.
The East-West Divide and the Frontier Efforts of the Reverend Dr. Joseph Doddridge. Pennsylvania History, 85 (Autumn, 2018), 460–87.
‘I was on the point of death’ and a Question of Carey’s Affairs of the Heart. Elizabeth A. Dixon and Larry Joseph Kreitzer. Baptist History and Heritage, 53
(Fall, 2018), 19–32.
“All Our Children May be Taught of God”: Sunday Schools and the Roles of
Childhood and Youth in Creating Evangelical Benevolence. K. Elise Leal.
Church History, 87 (Dec., 2018), 1056–90.
Canal Diggers, Church Builders: Dispelling Stereotypes of the Irish on the Illinois
and Michigan Canal Corridor. Eileen M. McMahon. Journal of Illinois State
Historical Society, 111 (Winter, 2018), 43–81.
Joseph Smith’s Kingdom of God: The Council of Fifty and the Mormon Challenge
to American Democratic Politics. Benjamin E. Park. Church History, 87
(Dec., 2018), 1029–55.
Radical Orthodoxy: William Goodell and the Abolition of American Slavery. Steve
Gowler. New England Quarterly, 91 (Dec., 2018), 592–624.

210

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

The curious case of Catherine Mary Hewitt and U.S. Major General of Volunteers
John Fulton Reynolds: bodies, mourning the dead, and religion in the era of
the American Civil War. Mitchell G. Kingenberg. America in Nineteenth Century History, 10 (Sept., 2018), 225–49.
‘Dear Brother Graves’: Expert Advice to the Local Congregations in the Old
South. Scott M. Stephan. Baptist History and Heritage, 53 (Fall, 2018), 51–62.
Les obstacles sur la voie du sacerdoce chez les Inuits de Canada. Maner Maluk,
Sikkuaq et les Oblats. Frédéric Benjamin Laugrand. Revue d’histoire
d’Amérique française, 72 (Summer, 2018), 53–80.
Les maisons noires colonisateurs “gouvernementaux” entre Église et État, 1911–
1936. Frédéric Lemieux. Revue d’histoire d’Amérique française, 72 (Autumn,
2018), 41–68.
Democratic Tendencies: Liberal Protestantism and the Growth of American Pluralism. Joel D. S. Rasmussen. Modern Intellectual History, 15 (Nov., 2018),
893–908.
Les jésuites du Québec et la representation de l’histoire mexicaine, 1928–1954.
Maurice Demers. Revue d’histoire d’Amérique française, 71 (Winter-Spring,
2018), 41–60.
The Place of Southern Baptist Women in the Church, Home, and Society, 1950–
1979. Joseph E. Early, Jr. Baptist History and Heritage, 53 (Fall, 2018), 79–95.
The Nun’s Story: ‘True in its Essentials.’ Darcy Buerkle. Gender and History, 30
(Oct., 2018), 611–30.
His Land and the Origins of the Jewish-Evangelical Israel Lobby. Daniel G.
Hummel. Church History, 87 (Dec., 2018), 1119–51.
Reversing Gears: Jesse Helms’s Embrace of Christian Zionism. Maxwell Ulin.
North Carolina Historical Review, 95 (Oct., 2018), 377–404.

LATIN AMERICAN
Winds, heart, and heat in premodern Franciscan and Nahua concepts of ‘soul’.
Dana Bultman. Colonial Latin American Review, 27 (Sept., 2018), 296–315.
Rethinking the Amazon Frontier in the Seventeenth Century: The Violent Deaths
of the Missionaries Luis Figueira and Francisco Pires. Pablo Ibánez-Bonillo.
Ethnohistory, 65 (Oct., 2018), 575–95.
Pious Funds across the Pacific (1668-1823): Charitable Bequests or Credit Source?
Juan O. Mesquido. The Americas, 75 (Oct., 2018), 661–97.
Los Presbiterianos revolucionarios en Yucatán: incersión sociale y participación
política. Ezer Roboam May. Historia Mexicana, 68 (Oct.–Dec., 2018), 557–610.
Father, Where Art Thou? Catholic Priests and Mexico’s 1929 Relación de Sacerdotes. Matthew Butler and Kevin D. Powell. Hispanic American Historical
Review, 98 (Nov., 2018), 635–67.

Other Books Received
Alter, Robert. The Art of Bible Translation. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. 2019. Pp. xviii, 127. $24.95 cloth.)
*Arand, Charles P., James A. Nestingen, and Robert Kolb (eds.). The Lutheran
Confessions: History and Theology in the Book of Concord. (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press. 2012. Pp. x, 341. $39.00 paperback.)
*Barber, Malcolm. The Crusader States. (New Haven: Yale University Press. 2012.
Pp. xviii, 476. $38.00 cloth.)
Beal, Timothy. The Book of Revelation: A Biography. [Lives of Great Religious
Books.] (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2018. Pp. xviii, 265.
$26.95 cloth.)
Bireley, Robert (ed.). Botero: The Reason of State. [Cambridge Texts in the History
of Political Thought.] (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2017. Pp.
xxxvi, 230. $32.99 paperback.)
*Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ecumenical, Academic, and Pastoral Work: 1931–1932. [Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 11.] (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
2012. Pp. xxii, 612. $60.00 cloth.)
*Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Theological Education Underground: 1937–1940. [Dietrich
Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 15.] (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 2012.
Pp. xxiv, 726. $60.00 cloth.)
*Bouchard, Constance Brittain. Three Cartularies from Thirteenth-Century Auxerre.
[Medieval Academy Books, No. 113.] (Toronto: University of Toronto Press
for the Medieval Academy of America. 2012. Pp. x, 259. $90.00 cloth.)
*Bowden, Caroline, and James E. Kelly (eds.). The English Convents in Exile, 1600–
1800: Communities, Culture and Identity. [Catholic Christendom, 1300–1700.]
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. 2013. Pp. xxii, 282. $134.95
cloth.)
Bracken, Joseph A., SJ. Church as Dynamic Life-System: Shared Ministries and
Common Responsibilities. [Catholicity in an Evolving Universe.] (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books. 2019. Pp. xiv, 161. $27.00 paperback.)
*Brasington, Bruce C., and Kathleen G. Cushing (eds). Bishops, Texts and the Uses
of Canon Law around 1100: Essays in Honour of Martin Brett. [Church, Faith

*Books that were accepted for review, but of which no review has been received in spite
of two reminders, are marked with an asterisk.

211

212

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED
and Culture in the Medieval West.] (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing
Company. 2008. Pp. xvi, 224. $134.95 cloth.)

*Brown, Roberta Stringham, and Patricia O’Connell Killen (eds.). Selected Letters
of A. M. A Blanchet, Bishop of Walla Walla and Nesqualy (1846–1879). (Seattle:
University of Washington Press. 2013. Pp. xviii, 272. $40.00 cloth.)
Burton, Janet, with Lynda Lockyer (eds. and trans.). Historia Selebiensis Monasterii.
The History of the Monastery of Selby. [Oxford Medieval Texts.] (Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 2013. Pp. xcvi, 178. $160.00 cloth.)
Cappozzo, Valerio. Dizionario dei Sogni nel Medioevo. Il Somniale Danielis in
Manoscritti Letterari. [Biblioteca dell’“Archivum Romanicum,” Serie I, Storia,
Letteratura, Paleografia, 466.] (Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore. 2018. Pp.
xii, 402. €35,00 paperback.)
*Cavarzere, Marco. La giustizia del Vescovo: I Tribunali ecclesiastici della Liguria orientale (secc. XVI–XVIII). [Quaderni del Dipartimento di Storia, Università di
Pisa, 6.] (Pisa, Italy: Pisa University Press. 2012. Pp. 342. €20,00 paperback.)
*Crislip, Andrew. Thorns in the Flesh: Illness and Sanctity in Late Ancient Christianity. [Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion.] (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press. 2012. Pp. vii, 272. $65.00 cloth.)
Cummings, Brian. The Book of Common Prayer: A Very Short Introduction. (New
York: Oxford University Press. 2018. Pp. xviii, 139. $11.95 paperback.)
*Eisner, Peter. The Pope’s Last Crusade: How an American Jesuit Helped Pope Pius XI’s
Campaign to Stop Hitler. (New York: William Morrow, imprint of Harper
Collins Publishers. 2013. Pp. xii, 292. $27.99 cloth.)
*Elm, Susanna. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of
Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome. [Transformation of the Classical Heritage,
vol. XLIX.] (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 2012.
Pp. xx, 553. $75.00 cloth.)
*Fay, Terence, S.J. New Faces of Canadian Catholics: The Asians. (Toronto: Novalis.
2009. Pp. 336. $24.95 paperback.)
Francis, Pope, and Friends. Sharing the Wisdom of Time. Edited by Antonio
Spadaro, S.J. (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2018. Pp. 178. $29.95 cloth,]
*Forclaz, Bertrand (ed.). L’expérience de la différence religieuse dans l’Europe moderne
(XVI e–XVIII e siècles). (Neuchatel, Switzerland: Éditions Alphil-Presses Universitaires Suisses. 2013. Pp. 410. $52.00 paperback.)
*Garcia, Matt. From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez
and the Farm Worker Movement. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press. 2012. Pp. xvi, 350. $34.95 cloth.)
*Hirschfeld, Michael. Die Bischofswahlen im Deutschen Reich, 1887–1914. Ein Konfliktfeld zwischen Staat und katholischer Kirche zwischen dem Ende des Kul-

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED

213

turkampfes und dem Ersten Weltkrieg. (Münster, Germany: Aschendorff
Verlag. 2012. Pp. 1002. €69 cloth.)
*Illanes, José Luis, and Alfredo Méndiz (eds.). Conversaciones con Monseñor Escrivá
de Balaguer. [Obras Completas de San Josemaría, Series 1: Obras Publicadas,
vol. 3.] (Madrid: Ediciones RIALP, S. A. 2012. Pp. xxvii, 574; 12 pages of
facsimiles and photographs. €36,00 cloth.)
Kauffmann, C. M. Eve’s Apple to the Last Supper: Picturing Food in the Bible.
(Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, imprint of Boydell & Brewer. 2017. Pp. viii,
176. $90.00 cloth.)
*Kessell, John L. Miera y Pacheco: A Renaissance Spaniard in Eighteenth-Century
New Mexico. (Norman: Oklahoma University Press. 2013. Pp. xviii, 194.
$29.95 cloth.)
*Klapp, Sabine. Das Äbtissinnenamt in den Unterelsässischen Frauenstiften vom 14. bis
zum 16. Jahrhundert. Unkämptft, Verhandelt, Normiert. [Studien zur Germania
Sacra, Neue Folge 3.] (Berlin: De Gruyter GmbH. 2012. Pp. x, 621. €129,95
cloth.)
*Kooi, Christine. Calvinists and Catholics During Holland’s Golden Age: Heretics and
Idolaters. (New York: Cambridge University Press. 2012. Pp. x, 246. $99.00
cloth.)
Krafl, Pavel Otmar (ed.). Sacri Canones Editandi: Studies on Medieval Canon Law in
Memory of Jiří Kejř. [Ius canonicum medii aevi, Vol. I.] (Brno: Reprocentrum.
2017. Pp. 266. Paperback, price unknown.)
*Kuropka, Joachim (ed.). Grenzen des katholischen Milieus. Stabilität und Gefährdung
katholischer Milieus in der Endphase der Weimarer Republik und der NS-Zeit.
(Münster, Germany: Aschendorff Verlag. 2013. Pp. 551. €39,00 paperback.)
*McCahill, Elizabeth. Reviving the Eternal City: Rome and the Papal Court, 1420–
1447. [I Tatti Studies in Italian Renaissance History.] (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. 2013. Pp. xii, 288. $49.95 cloth.)
*McCall, Fiona. Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution. [St
Andrews Studies in Reformation History.] (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. 2013. Pp. xviii, 336. $134.95 cloth.)
McCarten, Anthony. The Pope: Francis, Benedict, and the Decision That Shook the
World. (New York: Flatiron Books. 2019. Pp. xxii, 233. $26.99 cloth.)
*McGinn, Bernard. The Varieties of Vernacular Mysticism (1350–1550). [The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. V.] (New York:
Crossroad Publishing Company. 2012. Pp. xiv, 721. $70.00 cloth.)
*McGuinness, Margaret M. Neighbors and Missionaries: A History of the Sisters of
Our Lady of Christian Doctrine. (New York: Fordham University Press. 2012.
Pp. xiv, 230. $40.00 cloth.)

214

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED

*Martínez Millán, José, Henar Pizarro Llorente, and Esther Jiménez Pablo (eds.).
Los jesuitas: religión, política y educación (siglos XVI–XVIII). 3 vols. (Madrid:
Universidad Pontificia Comillas. 2012. Pp. 652, 653-1338, 1339-1928. €90
paperback.)
*Marenbon, John. Abelard in Four Dimensions: A Twelfth-Century Philosopher in His
Context and Ours. [Conway Lectures in Medieval History, 2009.] (Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 2013. Pp. x, 284. $34.00 paperback.)
*Menozzi, Daniele. Chiesa e diritti umani: Legge naturale e modernità politicia dalla
Rivoluzione francese ai nostri giorni. (Bologna: Il Mulino. 2012. Pp. 271.
€22,00 paperback.)
*Miccoli, Giovanni. Antisemitismo e cattolicesimo. (Brescia, Italy: Editrice Morcelliana. 2013. Pp. 426. €28,00 paperback.)
*Miké, Valerie and John Miké, Jr. Seeking Freedom and Justice for Hungary: John
Madl-Miké (1905–81), the Kolping Movement and the Years in Exile. Volume I:
Hungary and Germany (1905–1949). (Lanham, MD: Hamilton Books,
imprint of Rowman & Littlefield. 2015. Pp. xxii, 309. $38.99 paperback.)
*Mullins, Juliet, Jenifer Ní Grhádaigh, and Richard Hawtree (eds.). Envisioning
Christ on the Cross: Ireland and the early medieval West. (Dublin: Four Courts
Press; distributed in the USA by International Specialized Book Services,
Portland, OR. 2013. Pp. xiv, 370. $74.50 cloth.)
*Muehlenbeck, Philip E. (ed.). Religion and the Cold War: A Global Perspective.
(Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. 2012. Pp. xxii, 314. $69.95 cloth,
$27.95 paperback.)
*Nemec, Damián. Concordat Agreements between the Holy See and the Post-Communist Countries (1990–2010). [European Consortium for Church and State
Research—Law and Religion Studies, vole. 8.] (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.
2012. Pp. 544. €68,00 paperback.)
*Noble, Thomas F. X., and John Van Engen (eds.). European Transformations: The
Long Twelfth-Century. [Notre Dame Conferences in Medieval Studies.]
(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 2012. Pp. xii, 562. $65.00
paperback.)
*Noffke, Suzanne, O.P. Catherine of Siena: An Anthology. 2 vols. [Medieval and
Renaissance Texts and Studies, volume 406.] (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center
for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. 2012. Pp. xxx, 606; 607–1154. $120.00
cloth.)
*Petrenko, Vitali. The Development of Authority within the Russian Orthodox Church:
A theological and historical inquiry. (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.
2012. Pp. viii, 310. $69.95 paperback.)
*Potestà, Gian Luca, and Marco Rizzi (eds.). L’anticristo. Volume II: Il figlio della
perdizione. Testi del IV al XII secolo. [Scrittori Greci e Latini.] (Rimini, Italy:
Fondazione Lorenzo Valla. 2012. Pp. xxxvi, 650. €30,00 cloth.)

O THER BOOKS RECEIVED

215

*Probst, Christopher J. Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in
Nazi Germany. (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press,
in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2012.
Pp. xvi, 251. $25.00 paperback.)
*Radano, John A. (ed.). Celebrating a Century of Ecumenism: Exploring the Achievements of the International Dialogue. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company. 2012. Pp. xxvi, 330. $40.00 paperback.)
*Raffe, Alasdair. The Culture of Controversy: Religious Arguments in Scotland, 1660–
1714. [Studies in Modern British Religious History, volume 28.] (Rochester,
NY: Boydell Press. 2012. Pp. xvi, 289. $95.00 cloth.)
*Raiswell, Richard, and Peter Dendle (eds.). The Devil in Premodern Europe. [Essays
and Studies, vo. 28.] (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance
Studies. 2012. Pp.568. $37.00 paperback.)
*Rauer, Christine. The Old English Martyrology: Edition, Translation and Commentary. [Anglo-Saxon Texts, vol. 10.] (Rochester, NY: D. S. Brewer, imprint of
Boydell & Brewer. 2013. Pp. xii, 400. $99.00 cloth.)
*Schramm, Brooks, and Kirsi I. Stjerna (eds.). Martin Luther, the Bible, and the
Jewish People: A Reader. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 2012. Pp. viii, 245.
$26.00 paperback.)
*Sowerby, Scott. Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution.
[Harvard Historical Studies, vol. 181.] (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. 2013. Pp. x, 404. $49.95 cloth.)
*Soyer, François. Ambiguous Gender in Early Modern Spain and Portugal: Inquisitors,
Doctors and the Transgression of Gender Norms. [The Medieval and Early
Modern Iberian World, volume 47.] (Leiden: Brill. 2012. Pp. xvi, 328.
$171.00 cloth.)
*Stelling, Lieke, Harald Hendrix, and Todd M. Richardson (eds.). The Turn of the
Soul: Representations of Religious Conversion in Early Modern Art and Literature.
[Intersections: Interdisciplinary Studies in Early Modern Culture, volume
23.] (Leiden: Brill. 2012. Pp. xvi, 396. $182.00 cloth.)
*Sullivan, Mary C. The Path of Mercy: The Life of Catherine McAuley. (Washington,
D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. 2012. Pp. xxiv, 419. $49.95
cloth.)
*Thiel, Mark G., and Christopher Vecsey (eds.). Native Footsteps: Along the Path of
Saint Kateri Tekakawitha. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. 2012. Pp.
276. $20.00 cloth.)
*Vaughn, Sally N. Archbishop Anselm 1093–1109: Bec Missionary, Canterbury Primate, Patriarch of Another World. [Archbishops of Canterbury Series.]
(Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. 2013. Pp. xxii, 287. $39.95
cloth.)

216

OTHER BOOKS RECEIVED

*Verdeil, Chantal (ed.). Missions chrétiennes en terre d’islam (XVII e–XX e siècles).
Anthologie de textes missionnaires. (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. 2013. Pp. 407.
€50,00 paperback.)
*Wadsworth, James E. In Defence of the Faith: Joaquim Marques de Araújo, A Commisário in the Age of Inquisitional Decline. [McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion, series 2, volume 61.] (Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2013. Pp. xxii, 202. $65.00 cloth.)
*Wickins, Peter. Victorian Protestantism and Bloody Mary: The Legacy of Religious
Persecution in Tudor England. (Bury St Edmunds, UK: Arena Books. 2012.
Pp. xii, 378. £17.99/$31.50 paperback.)
Winner, Lauren F. The Dangers of Christian Practice: On Wayward Gifts, Characteristic Damage, and Sin. (New Haven: Yale University Press. 2018. Pp. vi, 230.
$28.00 cloth.)
Yarrow, Simon. Saints: A Very Short Introduction. (New York: Oxford University
Press. 2018. Pp. xviii, 149. $11.95 paperback.)