Fathers of the Church

• The Appeal to the Fathers
• Classification of Patristic Writings
  • Apostolic Fathers and the Second Century
  • Third Century
  • Fourth Century
  • Fifth Century
  • Sixth Century
• Characteristics of Patristic Writings
  • Commentaries
  • Preachers
  • Writers
  • East and West
  • Theology
  • Discipline, Liturgy, Ascetics
  • Historical Materials
• Patristic Study

The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ" (I Cor., iv, 15, 16; cf. Gal., iv, 19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as "the Fathers" (II Peter, iii, 4).

Thus St. Irenaeus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, i, 1). A bishop is emphatically a "father in Christ", both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church. But he is also regarded by the early Fathers, such as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as the recipient of the tradition of his predecessors in the see, and consequently as the witness and representative of the faith of his Church before Catholicity and the world. Hence the expression "the Fathers" comes naturally to be applied to the holy bishops of a preceding age, whether of the last generation or further back, since they are the parents at whose knee the Church of today was taught her belief. It is also applicable in an eminent way to bishops sitting in council, "the Fathers of Nicaea", "the Fathers of Trent". Thus Fathers have learnt from Fathers, and in the last resort from the Apostles, who are sometimes called Fathers in this sense: "They are your Fathers", says St. Leo, of the Princes of the Apostles, speaking to the Romans; St. Hilary of Arles calls them sancti patres; Clement of Alexandria says that his teachers, from Greece, Ionia, Coele-Syria, Egypt, the Orient, Assyria, Palestine, respectively, had handed on to him the tradition of blessed teaching from Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, receiving it "as son from father".

It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth. It is difficult to define the first age of the Church, or the age of the Fathers. It is a common habit to stop the study of the early Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. "The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754). It is frequently said that St. Bernard (d. 1153) was the last of the Fathers, and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" extends to Innocent III, halting only on the verge of the thirteenth century, while his "Patrologia Graeca" goes as far as the Council of Florence (1438-9). These limits are evidently too wide, It will be best to consider that the great merit of St. Bernard as a writer lies in his resemblance in style and matter to the greatest among the Fathers, in spite of the difference of period. St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) and the Venerable Bede (d. 735) are to be classed among the Fathers, but they may be said to have been born out of due time, as St. Theodore the Studite was in the East.

I. THE APPEAL TO THE FATHERS

Thus the use of the term Fathers has been continuous, yet it could not at first he employed in precisely the modern sense of Fathers of the Church. In early days the expression referred to writers who were then quite recent. It is still applied to those writers who are to us the ancients, but no longer in the same way to writers who are now recent. Appeals to the Fathers are a subdivision of appeals to tradition. In the first half of the second century begin the appeals to the sub-Apostolic age: Papias appeals to the presbyters, and through them to the Apostles. Half a century later St. Irenaeus supplements this method by an appeal to the tradition handed down in every Church by the succession of its bishops (Adv. Haer., III, i-iii), and Tertullian clinches this argument by the observation that as all the Churches agree, their tradition is secure, for they could not all have strayed by chance into the same error (Praescr., xxviii). The appeal is thus to Churches and their bishops, none but bishops being the authoritative exponents of the doctrine of their Churches. As late as 341 the bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared: "We are not followers of Arius; for how could we, who are bishops, be disciples of a priest?"

Yet slowly, as the appeals to the presbyters died out, there was arising by the side of appeals to the Churches a third method: the custom of appealing to Christian teachers who were not necessarily bishops. While, without the Church, Gnostic schools were substituted for churches, within the Church, Catholic schools were growing up. Philosophers like Justin and most of the numerous second-century apologists were reasoning about religion, and the great catechetical school of Alexandria was gathering renown. Great bishops and saints like Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus of Pontus, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Alexander of Jerusalem were proud to be disciples of the priest Origen. The Bishop Cyprian called daily for the works of the priest Tertullian with the words "Give me the master". The Patriarch Athanasius refers for the ancient use of the word homoousios, not merely to the two Dionysii, but to the priest Theognostus. Yet these priest-teachers are not yet called Fathers, and the greatest among them, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, Novatian, Lucian, happen to be tinged with heresy; two became antipopes; one is the father of Arianism; another was condemned by a general council. In each case we might apply the words used by St. Hilary of Tertullian: "Sequenti errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem" (Comm. in Matt., v, 1, cited by Vincent of Lérins, 2.4).

A fourth form of appeal was better founded and of enduring value. Eventually it appeared that bishops as well as priests were fallible. In the second century the bishops were orthodox. In the third they were often found wanting. in the fourth they were the leaders of schisms, and heresies, in the Meletian and Donatist troubles and in the long Arian struggle, in which few were found to stand firm against the insidious persecution of Constantius. It came to be seen that the true Fathers of the Church are those Catholic teachers who have persevered in her communion, and whose teaching has been recognized as orthodox. So it came to pass that out of the four "Latin Doctors" one is not a bishop. Two other Fathers who were not bishops have been declared to be Doctors of the Church, Bede and John Damascene, while among the Doctors outside the patristic period we find two more priests, the incomparable St. Bernard and the greatest of all theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas. Nay, few writers had such great authority in the Schools of the Middle Ages as the layman Boethius, many of whose definitions are still commonplaces of theology.

Similarly (we may notice in passing) the name "Father", which originally belonged to bishops, has been as it were delegated to priests, especially as ministers of the Sacrament of Penance. it is now a form of address to all priests in Spain, in Ireland, and, of recent years, in England and the United States.

Papas or Pappas, Pope, was a term of respect for eminent bishops (e.g. in letters to St. Cyprian and to St. Augustine -- neither of these writers seems to use it in addressing other bishops, except when St. Augustine writes to Rome). Eventually the term was reserved to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria; yet in the East to-day every priest is a "pope". The Aramaic abbe was used from early times for the superiors of religious houses. But through the abuse of granting abbeys in commendam to seculars, it has become a polite title for all secular clerics, even seminarists in Italy, and especially in France, whereas all religious who are priests are addressed as "Father".

We receive only, says St. Basil, what we have been taught by the holy Fathers; and he adds that in his Church of Caesarea the faith of the holy Fathers of Nicaea has long been implanted (Ep. cxl, 2). St. Gregory Nazianzen declares that he holds fast the teaching which he heard from the holy Oracles, and was taught by the holy Fathers. These Cappadocian saints seem to be the first to appeal to a real catena of Fathers. The appeal to one or two was already common enough; but not even the learned Eusebius had thought of a long string of authorities. St. Basil, for example (De Spir. S., ii, 29), cites for the formula "with the Holy Ghost" in the doxology, the example of Irenaeus, Clement and Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius of Rome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen, Africanus, the preces lucerariae said at the lighting of lamps, Athenagoras, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Firmilian, Meletius. In the fifth century this method became a stereotyped custom. St. Jerome is perhaps the first writer to try to establish his interpretation of a text by a string of exegetes (Ep. cxii, ad Aug.). Paulinus, the deacon and biographer of St. Ambrose, in the libellus he presented against the Pelagians to Pope Zosimus in 417, quotes Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, and the decrees of the late Pope Innocent. In 420 St. Augustine quotes Cyprian and Ambrose against the same heretics (C. duas Epp. Pel., iv). Julian of Eclanum quoted Chrysostom and Basil; St. Augustine replies to him in 421 (Contra Julianum, i) with Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, the decrees of African councils, and above all Popes Innocent and Zosimus. In a celebrated passage he argues that these Western writers are more than sufficient, but as Julian had appealed to the East, to the East, he shall go, and the saint adds Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Synod of Diospolis, Chrysostom. To these he adds Jerome (c. xxxiv): "Nor should you think Jerome, because he was a priest, is to be despised", and adds a eulogy. This is amusing, when we remember that Jerome in a fit of irritation, fifteen before, had written to Augustine (Ep. cxlii) "Do not excite against me the silly crowd of the ignorant, who venerate you as a bishop, and receive you with the honour due to a prelate when you declaim in the Church, whereas they think little of me, an old man, nearly decrepit, in my monastery in the solitude of the country."

In the second book "Contra Julianum", St. Augustine again cites Ambrose frequently, and Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary, Chrysostom; in ii, 37, he recapitulates the nine names (omitting councils and popes), adding (iii, 32) Innocent and Jerome. A few years later the Semipelagians of Southern Gaul, who were led by St. Hilary of Arles, St. Vincent of Lérins, and Bl. Cassian, refuse to accept St. Augustine's severe view of predestination because "contrarium putant patrum opinioni et ecclesiastico sensui". Their opponent St. Prosper, who was trying to convert them to Augustinianism, complains: "Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt" (Ep. inter Atig. ccxxv, 2), and they said that no ecclesiastical writer had ever before interpreted Romans quite as St. Augustine did -- which was probably true enough. The interest of this attitude lies in the fact that it was, if not new at least more definite than any earlier appeal to antiquity. Through most of the fourth century, the controversy with the Arians had turned upon Scripture, and appeals to past authority were few. But the appeal to the Fathers was never the most imposing locus theologicus, for they could not easily be assembled so as to form an absolutely conclusive test. On the other hand up to the end of the fourth century, there were practically no infallible definitions available, except condemnations of heresies, chiefly by popes. By the time that the Arian reaction under Valens caused the Eastern conservatives to draw towards the orthodox, and prepared the restoration of orthodoxy to power by Theodosius, the Nicene decisions were beginning to be looked upon as sacrosanct, and that council to be preferred to a unique position above all others. By 430, the date we have reached, the Creed we now say at Mass was revered in the East, whether rightly or wrongly, as the work of the 150 Fathers of Constantinople in 381, and there were also new papal decisions, especially the tractoria of Pope Zosimus, which in 418 had been sent to all the bishops of the world to be signed.

It is to living authority, the idea of which had thus come to the fore, that St. Prosper was appealing in his controversy with the Lerinese school. When he went to Gaul, in 431, as papal envoy, just after St. Augustine's death, he replied to their difficulties, not by reiterating that saint's hardest arguments, but by taking with him a letter from Pope St. Celestine, in which St. Augustine is extolled as having been held by the pope's predecessors to be "inter magistros optimos". No one is to be allowed to depreciate him, but it is not said that every word of his is to be followed. The disturbers had appealed to the Holy See, and the reply is "Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem" (Let novelty cease to attack antiquity!). An appendix is added, not of the opinions of ancient Fathers, but of recent popes, since the very same monks who thought St. Augustine went too far, professed (says the appendix) "that they followed and approved only what the most holy See of the Blessed Apostle Peter sanctioned and taught by the ministry of its prelates". A list therefore follows of "the judgments of the rulers of the Roman Church", to which are added some sentences of African councils, "which indeed the Apostolic bishops made their own when they approved them". To these inviolabiles sanctiones (we might roughly render "infallible utterances") prayers used in the sacraments are appended "ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" -- a frequently misquoted phrase -- and in conclusion, it is declared that these testimonies of the Apostolic See are sufficient, "so that we consider not to be Catholic at all whatever shall appear to be contrary to the decisions we have cited". Thus the decisions of the Apostolic See are put on a very different level from the views of St. Augustine, just as that saint always drew a sharp distinction between the resolutions of African councils or the extracts from the Fathers, on the one hand, and the decrees of Popes Innocent and Zosimus on the other.

Three years later a famous document on tradition and its use emanated from the Lerinese school, the "Commonitorium" of St. Vincent. He whole-heartedly accepted the letter of Pope Celestine, and he quoted it as an authoritative and irresistible witness to his own doctrine that where quod ubique, or universitas, is uncertain, we must turn to quod semper, or antiquitas. Nothing could be more to his purpose than the pope's: "Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem" The oecumenical Council of Ephesus had been held in the same year that Celestine wrote. Its Acts were before St. Vincent, and it is clear that he looked upon both pope and council as decisive authorities. It was necessary to establish this, before turning to his famous canon, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus otherwise universitas, antiquitas, consensio. It was not a new criterion, else it would have committed suicide by its very expression. But never had the doctrine been so admirably phrased, so limpidly explained, so adequately exemplified. Even the law of the evolution of dogma is defined by Vincent in language which can hardly be surpassed for exactness and vigour. St. Vincent's triple test is wholly misunderstood if it is taken to be the ordinary rule of faith. Like all Catholics he took the ordinary rule to be the living magisterium of the Church, and he assumes that the formal decision in cases of doubt lies with the Apostolic See, or with a general council. But cases of doubt arise when no such decision is forthcoming. Then it is that the three tests are to be applied, not simultaneously, but, if necessary, in succession.

When an error is found in one corner of the Church, then the first test, universitas, quod ubique, is an unanswerable refutation, nor is there any need to examine further (iii, 7, 8). But if an error attacks the whole Church, then antiquitas, quod semper is to be appealed to, that is, a consensus existing before the novelty arose. Still, in the previous period one or two teachers, even men of great fame, may have erred. Then we betake ourselves to quod ab omnibus, consensio, to the many against the few (if possible to a general council; if not, to an examination of writings). Those few are a trial of faith "ut tentet vos Dominus Deus vester" (Deut., xiii, 1 sqq.). So Tertullian was a magna tentatio; so was Origen -- indeed the greatest temptation of all. We must know that whenever what is new or unheard before is introduced by one man beyond or against all the saints, it pertains not to religion but to temptation (xx, 49). Who are the "Saints" to whom we appeal? The reply is a definition of "Fathers of the Church" given with all St. Vincent's inimitable accuracy: "Inter se majorem consulat interrogetque sententias, eorum dumtaxat qui, diversis licet temporibus et locis, in unius tamen ecclesiae Catholicae communione et fide permanentes, magistri probabiles exstiterunt; et quicquid non unus aut duo tantum, sed omnes pariter uno eodemque consensu aperte, frequenter, perseveranter tenuisse, scripsisse, docuisse cognoverit, id sibi quoque intelligat absque ulla dubitatione credendum" (iii, 8). This unambiguous sentence defines for us what is the right way of appealing to the Fathers, and the italicized words perfectly explain what is a "Father": "Those alone who, though in diverse times and places, yet persevering in time communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, have been approved teachers."

The same result is obtained by modern theologians, in their definitions; e.g. Fessler thus defines what constitutes a "Father":

1. orthodox doctrine and learning;
2. holiness of life;
3. (at the present day) a certain antiquity.

The criteria by which we judge whether a writer is a "Father" or not are:

1. citation by a general council, or
2. in public Acts of popes addressed to the Church or concerning Faith;
3. encomium in the Roman Martyrology as "sanctitate et doctrina insignis";
4. public reading in Churches in early centuries;
5. citations, with praise, as an authority as to the Faith by some of the more celebrated Fathers.

Early authors, though belonging to the Church, who fail to reach this standard are simply ecclesiastical writers ("Patrologia", ed. Jungmann, ch. i, #11). On the other hand, where the appeal is not to the authority of the writer, but his testimony is merely required to the belief of his time, one writer is as good as another, and if a Father is cited for this purpose, it is not as a Father that he is cited, but merely as a witness to facts well known to him. For the history of dogma, therefore, the works of ecclesiastical writers who are not only not approved, but even heretical, are often just as valuable as those of the Fathers. On the other hand, the witness of one Father is occasionally of great weight for doctrine when taken singly, if he is teaching a subject on which he is recognized by the Church as an especial authority, e.g., St. Athanasius on the Divinity of the Son, St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity, etc. There are a few cases in which a general council has given approbation to the work of a Father, the most important being the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were read at the Council of Ephesus. But the authority of single Fathers considered in itself, says Franzelin (De traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to stray from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity. But on the use of the Fathers in theological questions, the article Tradition and the ordinary dogmatic treatises on that subject must be consulted, as it is proper here only to deal with the historical development of their use. The subject was never treated as a part of dogmatic theology until the rise of what is now commonly called "Theologia fundamentalis", in the sixteenth century, the founders of which are Melchior Canus and Bellarmine. The former has a discussion of the use of the Fathers in deciding questions of faith (De locis theologicis, vii). The Protestant Reformers attacked the authority of the Fathers. The most famous of these opponents is Dalbeus (Jean Daillé, 1594-1670, "Traité de l'emploi des saints Pères", 1632; in Latin "De usu Patrum", 1656). But their objections are long since forgotten. Having traced the development of the use of the Fathers up to the period of its frequent employment, and of its formal statement by St. Vincent of Lérins, it will be well to give a glance at the continuation of the practice. We saw that, in 431, it was possible for St. Vincent (in a book which has been most unreasonably taken to be a mere polemic against St. Augustine -- a notion which is amply refuted by the use made in it of St. Celestine's letter) to define the meaning and method of patristic appeals. From that time onward they are very common. in the Council of Ephesus, 431, as St. Vincent points out, St. Cyril presented a series of quotations from the Fathers, tôn hagiôtatôn kai hosiôtatôn paterôn kai episkopôn diaphorôn marturôn, which were read on the motion of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi. They were from Peter I of Alexandria, Martyr, Athanasius, Popes Julius and Felix (forgeries), Theophilus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus, Amphilochius. On the other hand Eutyches, when tried at Constantinople by St. Flavian, in 449, refused to accept either Fathers or councils as authorities, confining himself to Holy Scripture, a position which horrified his judges (see Eutyches). In the following year St. Leo sent his legates, Abundius and Asterius. to Constantinople with a list of testimonies from Hilary, Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria. They were signed in that city, but were not produced at the Council of Chalcedon in the following year. Thenceforward the custom is fixed, and it is unnecessary to give examples. However, that of the sixth council in 680 is important: Pope St. Agatho sent a long series of extracts from Rome, and the leader of the Monothelites, Macarius of Antioch, presented another. Both sets were carefully verified from the library of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and sealed. It should be noted that it was never in such cases thought necessary to trace a doctrine back to the earliest times; St. Vincent demanded the proof of the Church's belief before a doubt arose -- this is his notion of antiquitas; and in conformity with this view, the Fathers quoted by councils and popes and Fathers are for the most part recent (Petavius, De Incarn., XIV, 15, 2-5).

In the last years of the fifth century a famous document, attributed to Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas, adds to decrees of St. Damasus of 382 a list of books which are approved, and another of those disapproved. In its present form the list of approved Fathers comprises Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Theophilus, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria (wanting in one MS.), Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Prosper, Leo ("every iota" of the tome to Flavian is to be accepted under anathema), and "also the treatises of all orthodox Fathers, who deviated in nothing from the fellowship of the holy Roman Church, and were not separated from her faith and preaching, but were participators through the grace of God until the end of their life in her communion; also the decretal letters, which most blessed popes have given at various times when consulted by various Fathers, are to be received with veneration". Orosius, Sedulius, and Juvencus are praised. Rufinus and Origen are rejected. Eusebius's "History" and "Chronicle" are not to be condemned altogether, though in another part of the list they appear as "apocrypha" with Tertullian, Lactantius, Africanus, Commodian, Clement of Alexandria, Arnobius, Cassian, Victorinus of Pettau, Faustus, and the works of heretics, and forged Scriptural documents. The later Fathers constantly used the writings of the earlier. For instance, St. Caesarius of Arles drew freely on St. Augustine's sermons, and embodied them in collections of his own; St. Gregory the Great has largely founded himself on St. Augustine; St. Isidore rests upon all his predecessors; St. John Damascene's great work is a synthesis of patristic theology. St. Bede's sermons are a cento from the greater Fathers. Eugippius made a selection from St. Augustine's writings, which had an immense vogue. Cassiodorus made a collection of select commentaries by various writers on all the books of Holy Scripture. St. Benedict especially recommended patristic study, and his sons have observed his advice: "Ad perfectionem conversationis qui festinat, sunt doctrinae sanctorum Patrum, quarum observatio perducat hominem ad celsitudinem perfectionis . . . quis liber sanctorum catholicorum Patrum hoc non resonat, ut recto cursu perveniamus ad creatorem nostrum?" (Sanet Regula, lxxiii). Florilegia and catenae became common from the fifth century onwards. They are mostly anonymous, but those in the East which go under the name OEcumenius are well known. Most famous of all throughout the Middle Ages was the "Glossa ordinaria" attributed to Walafrid Strabo. The "Catena aurea" of St. Thomas Aquinas is still in use. (See Catenae, and the valuable matter collected by Turner in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, V, 521.)

St. Augustine was early recognized as the first of the Western Fathers, with St. Ambrose and St. Jerome by his side. St. Gregory the Great was added, and these four became "the Latin Doctors". St. Leo, in some ways the greatest of theologians, was excluded, both on account of the paucity of his writings, and by the fact that his letters had a far higher authority as papal utterances. In the East St. John Chrysostom has always been the most popular, as he is the most voluminous, of the Fathers. With the great St. Basil, the father of monachism, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, famous for the purity of his faith, he made up the triumvirate called "the three hierarchs", familiar up to the present day in Eastern art. St. Athanasius was added to these by the Westerns, so that four might answer to four. (See Doctors of the Church.) It will be observed that many of the writers rejected in the Gelasian list lived and died in Catholic communion, but incorrectness in some part of their writings, e.g. the Semipelagian error attributed to Cassian and Faustus, the chiliasm of the conclusion of Victoninus's commentary on the Apocalypse (St. Jerome issued an expurgated edition, the only one in print as yet), the unsoundness of the lost "Hypotyposes" of Clement, and so forth, prevented such writers from being spoken of, as Hilary was by Jerome, "inoffenso pede percurritur". As all the more important doctrines of the Church (except that of the Canon and the inspiration of Scripture) may be proved, or at least illustrated, from Scripture, the widest office of tradition is the interpretation of Scripture, and the authority of the Fathers is here of very great importance. Nevertheless it is only then necessarily to be followed when all are of one mind: "Nemo . . . contra unanimum consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat", says the Council of Trent; and the Creed of Pius IV has similarly: ". . . nec eam unquam nisi juxta unanimum consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor". The Vatican Council echoes Trent: "nemini licere . . . contra unanimum sensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari."

A consensus of the Fathers is not, of course, to be expected in very small matters: "Quae tamen antiqua sanctorum patrum consensio non in omnibus divinae legis quaestiunculis, sed solum certe praecipue in fidei regula magno nobis studio et investiganda est et sequenda" (Vincent, xxviii, 72). This is not the method, adds St. Vincent, against widespread and inveterate heresies, but rather against novelties, to be applied directly they appear. A better instance could hardly be given than the way in which Adoptionism was met by the Council of Frankfort in 794, nor could the principle be better expressed than by the Fathers of the Council: "Tenete vos intra terminos Patrum, et nolite novas versare quaestiunculas; ad nihilum enim valent nisi ad subversionem audientium. Sufficit enim vobis sanctorum Patrum vestigia sequi, et illorum dicta firma tenere fide. Illi enim in Domino nostri exstiterunt doctores in fide et ductores ad vitam; quorum et sapientia Spiritu Dei plena libris legitur inscripta, et vita meritorum miraculis clara et sanctissima; quorum animae apud Deum Dei Filium, D.N.J.C. pro magno pietatis labore regnant in caelis. Hos ergo tota animi virtute, toto caritatis affectu sequimini, beatissimi fratres, ut horum inconcussa firmitate doctrinis adhaerentes, consortium aeternae beatitudinis . . . cum illis habere mereamini in caelis" ("Synodica ad Episc." in Mansi, XIII, 897-8). And an excellent act of faith in the tradition of the Church is that of Charlemagne (ibid., 902) made on the same occasion: "Apostolicae sedi et antiquis ab initio nascentis ecclesiae et catholicis traditionibus tota mentis intentione, tota cordis alacritate, me conjungo. Quicquid in illorum legitur libris, qui divino Spiritu afflati, toti orbi a Deo Christo dati sunt doctores, indubitanter teneo; hoc ad salutem animae meae sufficere credens, quod sacratissimae evangelicae veritatis pandit historia, quod apostolica in suis epistolis confirmat auctoritas, quod eximii Sacrae Scripturae tractatores et praecipui Christianae fidei doctores ad perpetuam posteris scriptum reliquerunt memoriam."

II. CLASSIFICATION OF PATRISTIC WRITINGS

In order to get a good view of the patristic period, the Fathers may be divided in various ways. One favourite method is by periods; the Ante-Nicene Fathers till 325; the Great Fathers of the fourth century and half the fifth (325-451); and the later Fathers. A more obvious division is into Easterns and Westerns, and the Easterns will comprise writers in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. A convenient division into smaller groups will be by periods, nationalities and character of writings; for in the East and West there were many races, and some of the ecclesiastical writers are apologists, some preachers, some historians, some commentators, and so forth.

A. (1) If we now take these groups in detail we find the letters of the chief Apostolic Fathers, St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp, venerable not merely for their antiquity, but for a certain simplicity and nobility of thought and style which is very moving to the reader. Their quotations from the New Testament are quite free. They offer most important information to the historian, though in somewhat homoeopathic quantities. To these we add the Didache, probably the earliest of all; the curious allegorizing anti-Jewish epistle which goes under the name of Barnabas; the Shepherd of Hermas, a rather dull series of visions chiefly connected with penance and pardon, composed by the brother of Pope Pius I, and long appended to the New Testament as of almost canonical importance. The works of Papias, the disciple of St. John and Aristion, are lost, all but a few precious fragments.

(2) The apologists are most of them philosophic in their treatment of Christianity. Some of their works were presented to emperors in order to disarm persecutions. We must not always accept the view given to outsiders by the apologists, as representing the whole of the Christianity they knew and practised. The apologies of Quadratus to Hadrian, of Aristo of Pella to the Jews, of Miltiades, of Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and of Melito of Sardis are lost to us. But we still possess several of greater importance. That of Aristides of Athens was presented to Antoninus Pius, and deals principally with the knowledge of the true God. The fine apology of St. Justin with its appendix is above all interesting for its description of the liturgy at Rome c. 150. his arguments against the Jews are found in the well-composed "Dialogue with Trypho", where he speaks of the Apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse in a manner which is of first-rate importance in the mouth of a man who was converted at Ephesus some time before the year 132. The "Apology" of Justin's Syrian disciple Tatian is a less conciliatory work, and its author fell into heresy. Athenagoras, an Athenian (c. 177), addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus an eloquent refutation of the absurd calumnies against Christians. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, about the same date, wrote three books of apology addressed to a certain Autolycus.

(3) All these works are of considerable literary ability. This is not the case with the great Latin apology which closely follows them in date, the "Apologeticus" of Tertullian, which is in the uncouth and untranslatable language affected by its author. Nevertheless it is a work of extraordinary genius, in interest and value far above all the rest, and for energy and boldness it is incomparable. His fierce "Ad Scapulam" is a warning addressed to a persecuting proconsul. "Adversus Judaeos" is a title which explains itself. The other Latin apologists are later. The "Octavios" of Minucius Felix is as polished and gentle as Tertullian is rough. Its date is uncertain. If the "Apologeticus "was well calculated to infuse courage into the persecuted Christian, the "Octavius" was more likely to impress the inquiring pagan, if so be that more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. With these works we may mention the much later Lactantius, the most perfect of all in literary form ("Divinae Institutiones", c. 305-10, and "De Mortibus persecutorum", c. 314). Greek apologies probably later than the second century are the "Irrisiones" of Hermias, and the very beautiful "Epistle" to Diognetus.

(4) The heretical writings of the second century are mostly lost. The Gnostics had schools and philosophized; their writers were numerous. Some curious works have come down to us in Coptic. The letter of Ptolemeus to Flora in Epiphanius is almost the only Greek fragment of real importance. Marcion founded not a school but a Church, and his New Testament, consisting of St. Luke and St. Paul, is preserved to some extent in the works written against him by Tertullian and Epiphanius. Of the writings of Greek Montanists and of other early heretics, almost nothing remains. The Gnostics composed a quantity of apocryphal Gospels amid Acts of individual Apostles, large portions of which are preserved, mostly in fragments, in Latin revisions, or in Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, or Slavonic versions. To these are to be added such well-known forgeries as the letters of Paul to Seneca, and the Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was recently found in the Fayûm.

(5) Replies to the attacks of heretics form, next to the apologetic against heathen persecutors on the one hand and Jews on the other, the characteristic Catholic literature of the second century. The "Syntagma" of St. Justin against all heresies is lost. Earlier yet, St. Papias (already mentioned) had directed his efforts to the refutation of the rising errors, and the same preoccupation is seen in St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. Hegesippus, a converted Jew of Palestine, journeyed to Corinth and Rome, where he stayed from the episcopate of Anicetus till that of Eleutherius (c. 160-180), with the intention of refuting the novelties of the Gnostics and Marcionites by an appeal to tradition. His work is lost. But the great work of St. Irenaeus (c. 180) against heresies is founded on Papias, Hegesippus, and Justin, and gives from careful investigation an account of many Gnostic systems, together with their refutation. His appeal is less to Scripture than to the tradition which the whole Catholic Church has received and handed down from the Apostles, through the ministry of successive bishops, and particularly to the tradition of the Roman Church founded by Peter and Paul.

By the side of Irenaeus must be put the Latin Tertullian, whose book "Of the Prescriptions Against Heretics" is not only a masterpiece of argument, but is almost as effective against modern heresies as against those of the early Church. It is a witness of extraordinary importance to the principles of unvarying tradition which the Catholic Church has always professed, and to the primitive belief that Holy Scripture must be interpreted by the Church and not by private industry. He uses Irenaeus in this work, and his polemical books against the Valentinians and the Marcionites borrow freely from that saint. He is the less persuasive of the two, because he is too abrupt, too clever, too anxious for the slightest controversial advantage, without thought of the easy replies that might be made. He sometimes prefers wit or hard hitting to solid argument. At this period controversies were beginning within the Church, the most important being the question whether Easter could be celebrated on a weekday. Another burning question at Rome, at the turn of the century, was the doubt whether the prophesying of the Montanists could be approved, and yet another, in the first years of the third century, was the controversy with a group of opponents of Montanism (so it seems), who denied the authenticity of the writings of St. John, an error then quite new.

B. (1) The Church of Alexandria already in the second century showed the note of learning, together with a habit borrowed from the Alexandrian Jews, especially Philo, of an allegorizing interpretation of Scripture. The latter characteristic is already found in the "Epistle of Barnabas", which may be of Alexandrian origin. Pantamus was the first to make the Catechetical school of the city famous. No writings of his are extant, but his pupil Clement, who taught in the school with Pantamus, c. 180, and as its head, c. 180-202 (died c. 214), has left a considerable amount of rather lengthy disquisitions dealing with mythology, mystical theology, education, social observances, and all other things in heaven and on earth. He was followed by the great Origen, whose fame spread far and wide even among the heathen. The remains of his works, though they fill several volumes, are to a great extent only in free Latin translations, and bear but a small ratio to the vast amount that has perished. The Alexandrians held as firmly as any Catholics to tradition as the rule of faith, at least in theory, but beyond tradition they allowed themselves to speculate, so that the "Hypotyposes" of Clement have been almost entirely lost on account of the errors which found a place in them, and Origen's works fell under the ban of the Church, though their author lived the life of a saint, and died, shortly after the Decian persecution, of the sufferings he had undergone in it.

The disciples of Origen were many and eminent. The library founded by one of them, St. Alexander of Jerusalem, was precious later on to Eusebius. The most celebrated of the school were St. Dionysius "the Great" of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Neocaesarea in Pontus, known as the Wonder-Worker, who, like St. Nonnosus in the West, was said to have moved a mountain for short distance by his prayers. Of the writings of these two saints not very much is extant.

(2) Montanism and the paschal question brought Asia Minor down from the leading position it held in the second century into a very inferior rank in the third. Besides St. Gregory, St. Methodius at the end of that century was a polished writer and an opponent of Origenism -- his name is consequently passed over without mention by the Origenist historian Eusebius. We have his "Banquet" in Greek, and some smaller works in Old Slavonic.

(3) Antioch was the head see over the "Orient" including Syria and Mesopotamia as well as Palestine and Phoenicia, but at no time did this form a compact patriarchate like that of Alexandria. We must group here writers who have no connection with one another in matter or style. Julius Africanus lived at Emmaus and composed a chronography, out of which the episcopal lists of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and a great deal of other matter, have been preserved for us in St. Jerome's version of the Chronicle of Eusebius, and in Byzantine chronographers. Two letters of his are of interest, but the fragments of his "Kestoi" or "Girdles" are of no ecclesiastical value; they contain much curious matter and much that is objectionable. In the second half of the third century, perhaps towards the end of it, a great school was established at Antioch by Lucian, who was martyred at Nicomedia in 312. He is said to have been excommunicated under three bishops, but if this is true he had been long restored at the time of his martyrdom. It is quite uncertain whether he shared the errors of Paul of Samosata (Bishop of Antioch, deposed for heresy in 268-9). At all events he was -- however unintentionally -- the father of Arianism, and his pupils were the leaders of that heresy: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius himself, with Menophantus of Ephesus, Athanasius of Anazarbus, and the only two bishops who refused to sign the new creed at the Council of Nicaea, Theognis of Nicaea and Maris of Chalcedon, besides the scandalous bishop Leontius of Antioch and the Sophist Asterius. At Caesarea, an Origenist centre, flourished under another martyr, St. Pamphilus, who with his friend Eusebius, a certain Ammonius, and others, collected the works of Origen in a long-famous library, corrected Origen's "Hexapla", and did much editing of the text both of the Old and the New Testaments.

(4) We hear of no writings at Rome except in Greek, until the mention of some small works in Latin, by Pope St. Victor, which still existed in Jerome's day. Hippolytus, a Roman priest, wrote from c. 200 to 235, and always in Greek, though at Carthage Tertullian had been writing before this in Latin. If Hippolytus is the author of the "Philosophumena" he was an antipope, and full of unreasoning enmity to his rival St. Callistus; his theology makes the Word proceed from God by His Will, distinct from Him in substance, and becoming Son by becoming man. There is nothing Roman in the theology of this work; it rather connects itself with the Greek apologists. A great part of a large commentary on Daniel and a work against Noetus are the only other important remains of this writer, who was soon forgotten in the West, though fragments of his works turn up in all the Eastern languages. Parts of his chronography, perhaps his last work, have survived. Another Roman antipope, Novatian, wrote in ponderous and studied prose with metrical endings. Some of his works have come down to us under the name of St. Cyprian. Like Hippolytus, he made his rigorist views the pretext for his schism. Unlike Hippolytus, he is quite orthodox in his principal work, "De Trinitate".

(5) The apologetic works of Tertullian have been mentioned. The earlier were written by him when a priest of the Church of Carthage, but about the year 200 he was led to believe in the Montanist prophets of Phrygia, and he headed a Montanist schism at Carthage. Many of his treatises are written to defend his position and his rigorist doctrines, and he does so with considerable violence and with the clever and hasty argumentation which is natural to him. The placid flow of St. Cyprian's eloquence (Bishop of Carthage, 249-58) is a great contrast to that of his "master". The short treatises and large correspondence of this saint are all concerned with local questions and needs, and he eschews all speculative theology. From this we gain the more light on the state of the Church, on its government, and on a number of interesting ecclesiastical and social matters. In all the patristic period there is nothing, with the exception of Eusebius's history, which tells us so much about the early Church as the small volume which contains St. Cyprian's works. At the end of the century Arnobius, like Cyprian a convert in middle age, and like other Africans, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Augustine, a former rhetorician, composed a dull apology. Lactantius carries us into the fourth century. He was an elegant and eloquent writer, but like Arnobius was not a well-instructed Christian.

C. (1) The fourth century is the great age of the Fathers. It was twelve years old when Constantine published his edict of toleration, and a new era for the Christian religion began. It is ushered in by Eusebius of Caesarea, with his great apologetic works "Praeparatio Evangelica"'and "Demonstratio Evangelica", which show the transcendent merit of Christianity, and his still greater historical works, the "Chronicle" (the Greek original is lost) and the "History", which has gathered up the fragments of the age of persecutions, and has preserved to us more than half of all we know about the heroic ages of the Faith. In theology Eusebius was a follower of Origen, but he rejected the eternity of Creation and of the Logos, so that he was able to regard the Arians with considerable cordiality. The original form of the pseudo-Clementine romance, with its long and tiresome dialogues, seems to be a work of the very beginning of the century against the new developments of heathenism, and it was written either on the Phoenician coast or not far inland in the Syrian neighbourhood. Replies to the greatest of the pagan attacks, that of Porphyry, become more frequent after the pagan revival under Julian (361-3), and they occupied the labours of many celebrated writers. St. Cyril of Jerusalem has left us a complete series of instructions to catechumens and the baptized, thus supplying us with an exact knowledge of the religious teaching imparted to the people in an important Church of the East in the middle of the fourth century. A Palestinian of the second half of the century, St. Epiphanius, became Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, and wrote a learned history of all the heresies. He is unfortunately inaccurate, and has further made great difficulties for us by not naming his authorities. He was a friend of St. Jerome, and an uncompromising opponent of Origenism.

(2) The Alexandrian priest Arius was not a product of the catechetical school of that city, but of the Lucianic school of Antioch. The Alexandrian tendency was quite opposite to the Antiochene, and the Alexandrian bishop, Alexander, condemned Arius in letters still extant, in which we gather the tradition of the Alexandrian Church. There is no trace in them of Origenism, the head-quarters of which had long been at Caesarea in Palestine, in the succession Theoctistus, Pamphilus, Eusebius. The tradition of Alexandria was rather that which Dionysius the Great had received from Pope Dionysius. Three years after the Nicene Council (325), St. Athanasius began his long episcopate of forty-five years. His writings are not very voluminous, being either controversial theology or apologetic memoirs of his own troubles, but their theological and historical value is enormous, on account of the leading part taken by this truly great man in the fifty years of fight with Arianism. The head of the catechetical school during this half-century was Didymus the Blind, an Athanasian in his doctrine of the Son, and rather clearer even than his patriarch in his doctrine of the Trinity, but in many other points carrying on the Origenistic tradition. Here may be also mentioned by the way a rather later writer, Synesius of Cyrene, a man of philosophical and literary habits, who showed energy and sincere piety as a bishop, in spite of the rather pagan character of his culture. His letters are of great interest.

(3) The second half of the century is illustrated by an illustrious triad in Cappadocia, St. Basil, his friend St. Gregory Nazianzen, and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. They were the main workers in the return of the East to orthodoxy. Their doctrine of the Trinity is an advance even upon that of Didymus, and is very near indeed to the Roman doctrine which was later embodied in the Athanasian creed. But it had taken a long while for the East to assimilate the entire meaning of the orthodox view. St. Basil showed great patience with those who had advanced less far on the right road than himself, and he even tempered his language so as to conciliate them. For fame of sanctity scarcely any of the Fathers, save St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, or St. Augustine, has ever equalled him. He practised extraordinary asceticism, and his family were all saints. He composed a rule for monks which has remained practically the only one in the East. St. Gregory had far less character, but equal abilities and learning, with greater eloquence. The love of Origen which persuaded the friends in their youth to publish a book of extracts from his writings had little influence on their later theology; that of St. Gregory in particular is renowned for its accuracy or even inerrancy. St. Gregory of Nyssa is, on the other hand, full of Origenism. The classical culture and literary form of the Cappadocians, united to sanctity and orthodoxy, makes them a unique group in the history of the Church.

(4) The Antiochene school of the fourth century seemed given over to Arianism, until the time when the great Alexandrians, Athanasius and Didymus, were dying, when it was just reviving not merely into orthodoxy, but into an efflorescence by which the recent glory of Alexandria and even of Cappadocia was to be surpassed. Diodorus, a monk at Antioch and then Bishop of Tarsus, was a noble supporter of Nicene doctrine and a great writer, though the larger part of his works has perished. His friend Theodore of Mopsuestia was a learned and judicious commentator in the literal Antiochene style, but unfortunately his opposition to the heresy of Apollinarius of Laodicea carried him into the opposite extreme of Nestorianism -- indeed the pupil Nestorius scarcely went so far as the master Theodore. But then Nestorius resisted the judgment of the Church, whereas Theodore died in Catholic communion, and was the friend of saints, including that crowning glory of the Antiochene school, St. John Chrysostom, whose greatest sermons were preached at Antioch, before he became Bishop of Constantinople. Chrysostom is of course the chief of the Greek Fathers, the first of all commentators, and the first of all orators whether in East or West. He was for a time a hermit, and remained ascetic in his life; he was also a fervent social reformer. His grandeur of character makes him worthy of a place beside St. Basil and St. Athanasius.

As Basil and Gregory were formed to oratory by the Christian Prohaeresius, so was Chrysostom by the heathen orator Libanius. In the classical Gregory we may sometimes find the rhetorician; in Chrysostom never; his amazing natural talent prevents his needing the assistance of art, and though training had preceded, it has been lost in the flow of energetic thought and the torrent of words. He is not afraid of repeating himself and of neglecting the rules, for he never wishes to be admired, but only to instruct or to persuade. But even so great a man has his limitations. He has no speculative interest in philosophy or theology, though he is learned enough to be absolutely orthodox. He is a holy man and a practical man, so that his thoughts are full of piety and beauty and wisdom; but he is not a thinker. None of the Fathers has been more imitated or more read; but there is little in his writings which can be said to have moulded his own or future times, and he cannot come for an instant into competition with Origen or Augustine for the first place among ecclesiastical writers.

(5) Syria in the fourth century produced one great writer, St. Ephraem, deacon of Edessa (306-73). Most of his writings are poetry; his commentaries are in prose, but the remains of these are scantier. His homilies and hymns are all in metre, and are of very great beauty. Such tender and loving piety is hardly found elsewhere in the Fathers. The twenty-three homilies of Aphraates (326-7), a Mesopotamian bishop, are of great interest.

(6) St. Hilary of Poitiers is the most famous of the earlier opponents of Arianism in the West. He wrote commentaries and polemical works, including the great treatise "De Trinitate" and a lost historical work. His style is affectedly involved and obscure, but he is nevertheless a theologian of considerable merit. The very name of his treatise on the Trinity shows that he approached the dogma from the Western point of view of a Trinity in Unity, but he has largely employed the works of Origen, Athanasius, and other Easterns. His exegesis is of the allegorical type. Until his day, the only great Latin Father was St. Cyprian, and Hilary had no rival in his own generation. Lucifer, Bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, was a very rude controversialist, who wrote in a popular and almost uneducated manner. The Spaniard Gregory of Illiberis, in Southern Spain, is only now beginning to receive his due, since Dom A. Wilmart restored to him in 1908 the important so-called "Tractatus Origenis de libris SS. Scripturae", which he and Batiffol had published in 1900, as genuine works of Origen translated by Victorinus of Pettau. The commentaries and anti-Arian works of the converted rhetorician, Marius Victorinus, were not successful. St. Eusebius of Vercellae has left us only a few letters. The date of the short discourses of Zeno of Verona is uncertain. The fine letter of Pope Julius I to the Arians and a few letters of Liberius and Damasus are of great interest.

The greatest of the opponents of Arianism in the West is St. Ambrose (d. 397). His sanctity and his great actions make him one of the most imposing figures in the patristic period. Unfortunately the style of his writings is often unpleasant, being affected and intricate, without being correct or artistic. His exegesis is not merely of the most extreme allegorical kind, but so fanciful as to be sometimes positively absurd. And yet, when off his guard, he speaks with genuine and touching eloquence; he produces apophthegms of admirable brevity, and without being a deep theologian, he shows a wonderful profundity of thought on ascetical, moral, and devotional matters. Just as his character demands our enthusiastic admiration, so his writings gain our affectionate respect, in spite of their very irritating defects. It is easy to see that he is very well read in the classics and in Christian writers of East and West, but his best thoughts are all his own.

(7) At Rome an original, odd, and learned writer composed a commentary on St. Paul's Epistles and a series of questions on the Old and New Testaments. He is usually spoken of as Ambrosiaster, and may perhaps be a converted Jew named Isaac, who later apostatized. St. Damasus wrote verses which are poor poetry but interesting where they give us information about the martyrs and the catacombs. His secretary for a time was St. Jerome, a Pannonian by birth, a Roman by baptism. This learned Father, "Doctor maximus in Sacris Scripturis", is very well known to us, for almost all that he wrote is a revelation of himself. He tells the reader of his inclinations and his antipathies, his enthusiasms and his irritations, his friendships and his enmities. If he is often out of temper, he is most human, most affectionate, most ascetic, most devoted to orthodoxy, and in many ways a very lovable character; for if he is quick to take offence, he is easily appeased, he is laborious beyond ordinary endurance, and it is against heresy that his anger is usually kindled. He lived all the latter part of his life in a retreat at Bethlehem, surrounded by loving disciples, whose untiring devotion shows that the saint was by no means such a rough diamond, one might say such an ogre, as he is often represented. He had no taste for philosophy, and seldom gave himself time to think, but he read and wrote ceaselessly. His many commentaries are brief and to the point, full of information, and the product of wide reading. His greatest work was the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin. He carried on the textual labours of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius, and his revision of the Latin Gospels shows the use of admirably pure Greek MSS., though he seems to have expended less pains on the rest of the New Testament. He attacked heretics with much of the cleverness, all the vivacity, and much more than the eloquence and effectiveness of Tertullian. He used the like weapons against any who attacked him, and especially against his friend Rufinus during their passing period of hostility.

If he is only "perhaps" the most learned of the Fathers, he is beyond doubt the greatest of prose writers among them all. We cannot compare his energy and wit with the originality and polish of Cicero, or with the delicate perfection of Plato, but neither can they or any other writer be compared with Jerome in his own sphere. He does not attempt flights of imagination, musical intonation, word-painting; he has no flow of honeyed language like Cyprian, no torrent of phrases like Chrysostom; he is a writer, not an orator, and a learned and classical writer. But such letters as his, for astonishing force and liveliness, for point, and wit, and terse expression, were never written before or since. There is no sense of effort, and though we feel that the language must have been studied, we are rarely tempted to call it studied language, for Jerome knows the strange secret of polishing his steel weapons while they are still at a white heat, and of hurling them before they cool. He was a dangerous adversary, and had few scruples in taking every possible advantage. He has the unfortunate defect of his extraordinary swiftness, that he is extremely inaccurate, and his historical statements need careful control. His biographies of the hermits, his words about monastic life, virginity, Roman faith, our Blessed Lady, relics of saints, have exercised great influence. It has only been known of late years that Jerome was a preacher; the little extempore discourses published by Dom Mona are full of his irrepressible personality and his careless learning.

(8) Africa was a stranger to the Arian struggle, being occupied with a battle of its own. Donatism (311-411) was for a long time paramount in Numidia, and sometimes in other parts. The writings of the Donatists have mostly perished. About 370 St. Optatus published an effective controversial work against them. The attack was carried on by a yet greater controversialist, St. Augustine, with a marvellous success, so that the inveterate schism was practically at an end twenty years before that saint's death. So happy an event turned the eyes of all Christendom to the brilliant protagonist of the African Catholics, who had already dealt crushing blows at the Latin Manichaean writers. From 417 till his death in 431, he was engaged in an even greater conflict with the philosophical and naturalistic heresy of Pelagius and Caelestius. In this he was at first assisted by the aged Jerome; the popes condemned the innovators and the emperor legislated against them. If St. Augustine has the unique fame of having prostrated three heresies, it is because he was as anxious to persuade as to refute. He was perhaps the greatest controversialist the world has ever seen. Besides this he was not merely the greatest philosopher among the Fathers, but he was the only great philosopher. His purely theological works, especially his "De Trinitate", are unsurpassed for depth, grasp, and clearness, among early ecclesiastical writers, whether Eastern or Western. As a philosophical theologian he has no superior, except his own son and disciple, St. Thomas Aquinas. It is probably correct to say that no one, except Aristotle, has exercised so vast, so profound, and so beneficial an influence on European thought.

Augustine was himself a Platonist through and through. As a commentator he cared little for the letter, and everything for the spirit, but his harmony of the Gospels shows that he could attend to history and detail. The allegorizing tendencies he inherited from his spiritual father, Ambrose, carry him now and then into extravagances, but more often he rather soars than commentates, and his "In Genesim ad litteram", and his treatises on the Psalms and on St. John, are works of extraordinary power and interest, and quite worthy, in a totally different style, to rank with Chrysostom on Matthew. St. Augustine was a professor of rhetoric before his wonderful conversion; but like St. Cyprian, and even more than St. Cyprian, he put aside, as a Christian, all the artifices of oratory which he knew so well. He retained correctness of grammar and perfect good taste, together with the power of speaking and writing with ease in a style of masterly simplicity and of dignified though almost colloquial plainness.

Nothing could be more individual than this style of St. Augustine's, in which he talks to the reader or to God with perfect openness and with an astonishing, often almost exasperating, subtlety of thought. He had the power of seeing all round a subject and through and through it, and he was too conscientious not to use this gift to the uttermost. Large-minded and far-seeing, he was also very learned. He mastered Greek only in later life, in order to make himself familiar with the works of the Eastern Fathers. His "De Civitate Dei" shows vast stores of reading; still more, it puts him in the first place among apologists. Before his death (431) he was the object of extraordinary veneration. He had founded a monastery at Tagaste, which supplied Africa with bishops, and he lived at Hippo with his clergy in a common life, to which the Regular Canons of later days have always looked as their model. The great Dominican Order, the Augustinians, and numberless congregations of nuns still look to him as their father and legislator. His devotional works have had a vogue second only to that of another of his spiritual sons, Thomas à Kempis. He had in his lifetime a reputation for miracles, and his sanctity is felt in all his writings, and breathes in the story of his life. It has been remarked that there is about this many-sided bishop a certain symmetry which makes him an almost faultless model of a holy, wise, and active man. It is well to remember that he was essentially a penitent.

(9) In Spain, the great poet Prudentius surpassed all his predecessors, of whom the best had been Juvencus and the almost pagan rhetorician Ausonius. The curious treatises of the Spanish heretic Priscillian were discovered only in 1889. In Gaul Rufinus of Aquileia must be mentioned as the very free translator of Origen, etc., and of Eusebius's "History", which he continued up to his own date. In South Italy his friend Paulinus of Nola has left us pious poems and elaborate letters.

D. (1) The fragments of Nestorius's writings have been collected by Loofs. Some of them were preserved by a disciple of St. Augustine, Marius Mercator, who made two collections of documents, concerning Nestorianism and Pelagianism respectively. The great adversary of Nestorius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, was opposed by a yet greater writer, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Cyril is a very voluminous writer, and his long commentaries in the mystical Alexandrian vein do not much interest modern readers. But his principal letters and treatises on the Nestorian question show him as a theologian who has a deep spiritual insight into the meaning of the Incarnation and its effect upon the human race -- the lifting up of man to union with God. We see here the influence of Egyptian asceticism, from Anthony the Great (whose life St. Athanasius wrote), and the Macarii (one of whom left some valuable works in Greek), and Pachomius, to his own time. In their ascetical systems, the union with God by contemplation was naturally the end in view, but one is surprised how little is made by them of meditation on the life and Passion of Christ. It is not omitted, but the tendency as with St. Cyril and with the Monophysites who believed they followed him, is to think rather of the Godhead than of the Manhood. The Antiochene school had exaggerated the contrary tendency, out of opposition to Apollinarianism, which made Christ's Manhood incomplete, and they thought more of man united to God than of God made man. Theodoret undoubtedly avoided the excesses of Theodore and Nestorius, and his doctrine was accepted at last by St. Leo as orthodox, in spite of his earlier persistent defence of Nestorius. His history of the monks is less valuable than the earlier writings of eyewitnesses -- Palladius in the East, and Rufinus and afterwards Cassian in the West. But Theodoret's "History" in continuation of Eusebius contains valuable information. His apologetic and controversial writings are the works of a good theologian. His masterpieces are his exegetical works, which are neither oratory like those of Chrysostom, nor exaggeratedly literal like those of Theodore. With him the great Antiochene school worthily closes, as the Alexandrian does with St Cyril. Together with these great men may be mentioned St. Cyril's spiritual adviser, St. Isidore of Pelusium, whose 2000 letters deal chiefly with allegorical exegesis, the commentary on St. Mark by Victor of Antioch, and the introduction to the interpretation of Scripture by the monk Hadrian, a manual of the Antiochene method.

(2) The Eutychian controversy produced no great works in the East. Such works of the Monophysites as have survived are in Syriac or Coptic versions.

(3) The two Constantinopolitan historians, Socrates and Sozomen, in spite of errors, contain some data which are precious, since many of the sources which they used are lost to us. With Theodoret, their contemporary, they form a triad just in the middle of the century. St. Nilus of Sinai is the chief among many ascetical writers.

(4) St. Sulpicius Severus, a Gallic noble, disciple and biographer of the great St. Martin of Tours, was a classical scholar, and showed himself an elegant writer in his "Ecclesiastical History". The school of Lérins produced many writers besides St. Vincent. We may mention Eucherius, Faustus, and the great St. Caesarius of Arles (543). Other Gallic writers are Salvian, St. Sidonius Apollinaris, Gennadius, St. Avitus of Vienne, and Julianus Pomerius.

(5) In the West, the series of papal decretals begins with Pope Siricius (384-98). Of the more important popes large numbers of letters have been preserved. Those of the wise St. Innocent I (401-17), the hot-headed St. Zosimus (417-8), and the severe St. Celestine are perhaps the most important in the first half of the century; in the second half those of Hilarus, Simplicius, and above all the learned St. Gelasius (492-6). Midway in the century stands St. Leo, the greatest of the early popes, whose steadfastness and sanctity saved Rome from Attila, and the Romans from Genseric. He could be unbending in the enunciation of principle; he was condescending in the condoning of breaches of discipline for the sake of peace, and he was a skilful diplomatist. His sermons and the dogmatic letters in his large correspondence show him to us as the most lucid of all theologians. He is clear in his expression, not because he is superficial, but because he has thought clearly and deeply. He steers between Nestorianism and Eutychianism, not by using subtle distinctions or elaborate arguments, but by stating plain definitions in accurate words. He condemned Monothelitism by anticipation. His style is careful, with metrical cadences. Its majestic rhythms and its sonorous closes have invested the Latin language with a new splendour and dignity.

E. (1) In the sixth century the large correspondence of Pope Hormisdas is of the highest interest. That century closes with St. Gregory the Great, whose celebrated "Registrum" exceeds in volume many times over the collections of the letters of other early popes. The Epistles are of great variety and throw light on the varied interests of the great pope's life and the varied events in the East and West of his time. His "Morals on the Book of Job" is not a literal commentary, but pretends only to illustrate the moral sense underlying the text. With all the strangeness it presents to modern notions, it is a work full of wisdom and instruction. The remarks of St. Gregory on the spiritual life and on contemplation are of special interest. As a theologian he is original only in that he combines all the traditional theology of the West without adding to it. He commonly follows Augustine as a theologian, a commentator and a preacher. His sermons are admirably practical; they are models of what a good sermon should be. After St. Gregory there are some great popes whose letters are worthy of study, such as Nicholas I and John VIII; but these and the many other late writers of the West belong properly to the medieval period. St. Gregory of Tours is certainly medieval, but the learned Bede is quite patristic. His great history is the most faithful and perfect history to be found in the early centuries.

(2) In the East, the latter half of the fifth century is very barren. The sixth century is not much better. The importance of Leontius of Byzantium (died c. 543) for the history of dogma has only lately been realized. Poets and hagiographers, chroniclers, canonists, and ascetical writers succeed each other. Catenas by way of commentaries are the order of the day. St. Maximus Confessor, Anastasius of Mount Sinai, and Andrew of Caesarea must be named. The first of these commented on the works of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, which had probably first seen the light towards the end of the fifth century. St. John of Damascus (c. 750) closes the patristic period with his polemics against heresies, his exegetical and ascetical writings, his beautiful hymns, and above all his "Fountain of Wisdom", which is a compendium of patristic theology and a kind of anticipation of scholasticism. Indeed, the "Summae Theologicae" of the Middle Ages were founded on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, who had taken the skeleton of his work from this last of the Greek Fathers.

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF PATRISTIC WRITINGS

A. Commentaries. It has been seen that the literal school of exegesis had its home at Antioch, while the allegorical school was Alexandrian, and the entire West, on the whole, followed the allegorical method, mingling literalism with it in various degrees. The suspicion of Arianism has lost to us the fourth-century writers of the Antiochene school, such as Theodore of Heraclea and Eusebius of Emesa, and the charge of Nestorianism has caused the commentaries of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (for the most part) to disappear. The Alexandrian school has lost yet more heavily, for little of the great Origen remains except in fragments and in unreliable versions. The great Antiochenes, Chrysostom and Theodoret, have a real grasp of the sense of the sacred text. They treat it with reverence and love, and their explanations are of deep value, because the language of the New Testament was their own tongue, so that we moderns cannot afford to neglect their comments. On the contrary, Origen, the moulder of the allegorizing type of commentary, who had inherited the Philonic tradition of the Alexandrian Jews, was essentially irreverent to the inspired authors. The Old Testament was to him full of errors, lies, and blasphemies, so far as the letter was concerned, and his defence of it against the pagans, the Gnostics, and especially the Marcionites, was to point only to the spiritual meaning. Theoretically he distinguished a triple sense, the somatic, the psychic, and the pneumatic, following St. Paul's trichotomy; but in practice he mainly gives the spiritual, as opposed to the corporal or literal.

St. Augustine sometimes defends the Old Testament against the Manichaeans in the same style, and occasionally in a most unconvincing manner, but with great moderation and restraint. In his "De Genesi ad litteram" he has evolved a far more effective method, with his usual brilliant originality, and he shows that the objections brought against the truth of the first chapters of the book invariably rest upon the baseless assumption that the objector has found the true meaning of the text. But Origen applied his method, though partially, even to the New Testament, and regarded the Evangelists as sometimes false in the letter, but as saving the truth in the hidden spiritual meaning. In this point the good feeling of Christians prevented his being followed. But the brilliant example he gave, of running riot in the fantastic exegesis which his method encouraged, had an unfortunate influence. He is fond of giving a variety of applications to a single text, and his promise to hold nothing but what can be proved from Scripture becomes illusory when he shows by example that any part of Scripture may mean anything he pleases. The reverent temper of later writers, and especially of the Westerns, preferred to represent as the true meaning of the sacred writer the allegory which appeared to them to be the most obvious. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in their beautiful works on the Psalms rather spiritualize, or moralize, than allegorize, and their imaginative interpretations are chiefly of events, actions, numbers, etc. But almost all allegorical interpretation is so arbitrary and depends so much on the caprice of the exegete that it is difficult to conciliate it with reverence, however one may he dazzled by the beauty of much of it. An alternative way of defending the Old Testament was excogitated by the ingenious author of the pseudo-Clementines; he asserts that it has been depraved and interpolated. St. Jerome's learning has made his exegesis unique; he frequently gives alternative explanations and refers to the authors who have adopted them. From the middle of the fifth century onwards, second-hand commentaries are universal in East and West, and originality almost entirely disappears. Andrew of Caesarea is perhaps an exception, for he commented on a book which was scarcely at all read in the East, the Apocalypse.

Discussions of method are not wanting. Clement of Alexandria gives "traditional methods", the literal, typical, moral, and prophetical. The tradition is obviously from Rabbinism. We must admit that it has in its favour the practice of St. Matthew and St. Paul. Even more than Origen, St. Augustine theorized on this subject. In his "De Doctrina Christiana" he gives elaborate rules of exegesis. Elsewhere he distinguishes four senses of Scripture: historical, aetiological (economic), analogical (where N.T. explains 0.T.), and allegorical ("De Util. Cred.", 3; cf. "De Vera Rel.", 50). The book of rules composed by the Donatist Tichonius has an analogy in the smaller "canons" of St. Paul's Epistles by Priscillian. Hadrian of Antioch was mentioned above. St. Gregory the Great compares Scripture to a river so shallow that a lamb can walk in it, so deep that an elephant can float. (Pref. to "Morals on Job"). He distinguishes the historical or literal sense, the moral, and the allegorical or typical. If the Western Fathers are fanciful, yet this is better than the extreme literalism of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who refused to allegorize even the Canticle of Canticles.

B. Preachers. We have sermons from the Greek Church much earlier than from the Latin. Indeed, Sozomen tells us that, up to his time (c. 450), there were no public sermons in the churches at Rome. This seems almost incredible. St. Leo's sermons are, however, the first sermons certainly preached at Rome which have reached us, for those of Hippolytus were all in Greek; unless the homily "Adversus Alcatores" be a sermon by a Novatian antipope. The series of Latin preachers begins in the middle of the fourth century. The so-called "Second Epistle of St. Clement" is a homily belonging possibly to the second century. Many of the commentaries of Origen are a series of sermons, as is the case later with all Chrysostom's commentaries and most of Augustine's. In many cases treatises are composed of a course of sermons, as, for instance, is the case for some of those of Ambrose, who seems to have rewritten his sermons after delivery. The "De Sacramentis" may possibly be the version by a shorthand-writer of the course which the saint himself edited under the title "De Mysteriis". In any case the "De Sacramentis" (whether by Ambrose or not) has a freshness and naiveté which is wanting in the certainly authentic "De Mysteriis". Similarly the great courses of sermons preached by St. Chrysostom at Antioch were evidently written or corrected by his own hand, but those he delivered at Constantinople were either hurriedly corrected, or not at all. His sermons on Acts, which have come down to us in two quite distinct texts in the MSS., are probably known to us only in the forms in which they were taken down by two different tachygraphers. St. Gregory Nazianzen complains of the importunity of these shorthand-writers (Orat. xxxii), as St. Jerome does of their incapacity (Ep. lxxi, 5). Their art was evidently highly perfected, and specimens of it have come down to us. They were officially employed at councils (e.g. at the great conference with the Donatists at Carthage, in 411, we hear of them). It appears that many or most of the bishops at the Council of Ephesus, in 449, had their own shorthand-writers with them. The method of taking notes and of amplifying receives illustration from the Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 27 April, 449, at which the minutes were examined which had been taken down by tachygraphers at the council held a few weeks earlier.

Many of St. Augustine's sermons are certainly from shorthand notes. As to others we are uncertain, for the style of the written ones is often so colloquial that it is difficult to get a criterion. The sermons of St. Jerome at Bethlehem, published by Dom Morin, are from shorthand reports, and the discourses themselves were unprepared conferences on those portions of the Psalms or of the Gospels which had been sung in the liturgy. The speaker has clearly often been preceded by another priest, and on the Western Christmas Day, which his community alone is keeping, the bishop is present and will speak last. In fact the pilgrim Ætheria tells us that at Jerusalem, in the fourth century, all the priests present spoke in turn, if they chose, and the bishop last of all. Such improvised comments are far indeed from the oratorical discourses of St. Gregory Nazianzen, from the lofty flights of Chrysostom, from the torrent of iteration that characterizes the short sermons of Peter Chrysologus, from the neat phrases of Maximus of Turin, and the ponderous rhythms of Leo the Great. The eloquence of these Fathers need not be here described. In the West we may add in the fourth century Gaudentius of Brescia; several small collections of interesting sermons appear in the fifth century; the sixth opens with the numerous collections made by St. Caesarius for the use of preachers. There is practically no edition of the works of this eminent and practical bishop. St. Gregory (apart from some fanciful exegesis) is the most practical preacher of the West. Nothing could be more admirable for imitation than St. Chrysostom. The more ornate writers are less safe to copy. St. Augustine's style is too personal to be an example, and few are so learned, so great, and so ready, that they can venture to speak as simply as he often does.

C. Writers. The Fathers do not belong to the strictly classical period of either the Greek or the Latin language; but this does not imply that they wrote bad Latin or Greek. The conversational form of the Koiné or common dialect of Greek, which is found in the New Testament and in many papyri, is not the language of the Fathers, except of the very earliest. For the Greek Fathers write in a more classicizing style than most of the New Testament writers; none of them uses quite a vulgar or ungrammatical Greek, while some Atticize, e.g. the Cappadocians and Synesius. The Latin Fathers are often less classical. Tertullian is a Latin Carlyle; he knew Greek, and wrote books in that language, and tried to introduce ecclesiastical terms into Latin. St. Cyprian's "Ad Donatum", probably his first Christian writing, shows an Apuleian preciosity which he eschewed in all his other works, but which his biographer Pontius has imitated and exaggerated. Men like Jerome and Augustine, who had a thorough knowledge of classical literature, would not employ tricks of style, and cultivated a manner which should be correct, but simple and straightforward; yet their style could not have been what it was but for their previous study. For the spoken Latin of all the patristic centuries was very different from the written. We get examples of the vulgar tongue here and there in the letters of Pope Cornelius as edited by Mercati, for the third century, or in the Rule of St. Benedict in Wölfflin's or Dom Mona's editions, for the sixth. In the latter we get such modernisms as cor murmurantem, post quibus, cum responsoria sua, which show how the confusing genders and cases of the classics were disappearing into the more reasonable simplicity of Italian. Some of the Fathers use the rhythmical endings of the "cursus" in their prose; some have the later accented endings which were corruptions of the correct prosodical ones. Familiar examples of the former are in the older Collects of the Mass; of the latter the Te Deum is an obvious instance.

D. East and West. Before speaking of the theological characteristics of the Fathers, we have to take into account the great division of the Roman Empire into two languages. Language is the great separator. When two emperors divided the Empire, it was not quite according to language; nor were the ecclesiastical divisions more exact, since the great province of Illyricum, including Macedonia and all Greece, was attached to the West through at least a large part of the patristic period, and was governed by the archbishop of Thessalonica, not as its exarch or patriarch, but as papal legate. But in considering the literary productions of the age, we must class them as Latin or Greek, and this is what will be meant here by Western and Eastern. The understanding of the relations between Greeks and Latins is often obscured by certain prepossessions. We talk of the "unchanging East", of the philosophical Greeks as opposed to the practical Romans, of the reposeful thought of the Oriental mind over against the rapidity and orderly classification which characterizes Western intelligence. All this is very misleading, and it is important to go back to the facts. In the first place, the East was converted far more rapidly than the West. When Constantine made Christianity the established religion of both empires from 323 onwards, there was a striking contrast between the two. In the West paganism had everywhere a very large majority, except possibly in Africa. But in the Greek world Christianity was quite the equal of the old religions in influence and numbers; in the great cities it might even be predominant, and some towns were practically Christian. The story told of St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, that he found but seventeen Christians in Neocaesarea when he became bishop, and that he left but seventeen pagans in the same city when he died (c. 270-5), must be substantially true. Such a story in the West would be absurd. The villages of the Latin countries held out for long, and the pagani retained the worship of the old gods even after they were all nominally Christianized. In Phrygia, on the contrary, entire villages were Christian long before Constantine, though it is true that elsewhere some towns were still heathen in Julian's day -- Gaza in Palestine is an example; but then Maiouma, the port of Gaza, was Christian.

Two consequences, amongst others, of this swift evangelization of the East must be noticed. In the first place, while the slow progress of the West was favourable to the preservation of the unchanged tradition, the quick conversion of the East was accompanied by a rapid development which, in the sphere of dogma, was hasty, unequal, and fruitful of error. Secondly, the Eastern religion partook, even during the heroic age of persecution, of the evil which the West felt so deeply after Constantine, that is to say, of the crowding into the Church of multitudes who were only half Christianized, because it was the fashionable thing to do, or because a part of the beauties of the new religion and of the absurdities of the old were seen. We have actually Christian writers, in East and West, such as Arnobius, and to some extent Lactantius and Julius Africanus, who show that they are only half instructed in the Faith. This must have been largely the case among the people in the East. Tradition in the East was less regarded, and faith was less deep than in the smaller Western communities. Again, the Latin writers begin in Africa with Tertullian, just before the third century, at Rome with Novatian, just in the middle of the third century, and in Spain and Gaul not till the fourth. But the East had writers in the first century, and numbers in the second; there were Gnostic and Christian schools in the second and third. There had been, indeed, Greek writers at Rome in the first and second centuries and part of the third. But when the Roman Church became Latin they were forgotten; the Latin writers did not cite Clement and Hermas; they totally forgot Hippolytus, except his chronicle, and his name became merely a theme for legend.

Though Rome was powerful and venerated in the second century, and though her tradition remained unbroken, the break in her literature is complete. Latin literature is thus a century and a half younger than the Greek; indeed it is practically two centuries and a half younger. Tertullian stands alone, and he became a heretic. Until the middle of the fourth century there had appeared but one Latin Father for the spiritual reading of the educated Latin Christian, and it is natural that the stichometry, edited (perhaps semi-officially) under Pope Liberius for the control of booksellers' prices, gives the works of St. Cyprian as well as the books of the Latin Bible. This unique position of St. Cyprian was still recognized at the beginning of the fifth century. From Cyprian (d. 258) to Hilary there was scarcely a Latin book that could be recommended for popular reading except Lactantius's "De mortibus persecutorum", and there was no theology at all. Even a little later, the commentaries of Victorinus the Rhetorician were valueless, and those of Isaac the Jew (?) were odd. The one vigorous period of Latin literature is the bare century which ends with Leo (d. 461). During that century Rome had been repeatedly captured or threatened by barbarians; Arian Vandals, besides devastating Italy and Gaul, had almost destroyed the Catholicism of Spain and Africa; the Christian British had been murdered in the English invasion. Yet the West had been able to rival the East in output and in eloquence and even to surpass it in learning, depth, and variety. The elder sister knew little of these productions, but the West was supplied with a considerable body of translations from the Greek, even in the fourth century. In the sixth, Cassiodorus took care that the amount should be increased. This gave the Latins a larger outlook, and even the decay of learning which Cassiodorus and Agapetus could not remedy, and which Pope Agatho deplored so humbly in his letter to the Greek council of 680, was resisted with a certain persistent vigour.

At Constantinople the means of learning were abundant, and there were many authors; yet there is a gradual decline till the fifteenth century. The more notable writers are like flickers amid dying embers. There were chroniclers and chronographers, but with little originality. Even the monastery of Studium is hardly a literary revival. There is in the East no enthusiasm like that of Cassiodorus, of Isidore, of Alcuin, amid a barbarian world. Photius had wonderful libraries at his disposal, yet Bede had wider learning, and probably knew more of the East than Photius did of the West. The industrious Irish schools which propagated learning in every part of Europe had no parallel in the Oriental world. It was after the fifth century that the East began to be "unchanging". And as the bond with the West grew less and less continuous, her theology and literature became more and more mummified; whereas the Latin world blossomed anew with an Anselm, subtle as Augustine, a Bernard, rival to Chrysostom, an Aquinas, prince of theologians. Hence we observe in the early centuries a twofold movement, which must be spoken of separately: an Eastward movement of theology, by which the West imposed her dogmas on the reluctant East, and a Westward movement in most practical things -- organization, liturgy, ascetics, devotion -- by which the West assimilated the swifter evolution of the Greeks. We take first the theological movement.

E. Theology. Throughout the second century the Greek portion of Christendom bred heresies. The multitude of Gnostic schools tried to introduce all kinds of foreign elements into Christianity. Those who taught and believed them did not start from a belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation such as we are accustomed to. Marcion formed not a school, but a Church; his Christology was very far removed from tradition. The Montanists made a schism which retained the traditional beliefs and practices, but asserted a new revelation. The leaders of all the new views came to Rome, and tried to gain a footing there; all were condemned and excommunicated. At the end of the century, Rome got all the East to agree with her traditional rule that Easter should be kept on Sunday. The Churches of Asia Minor had a different custom. One of their bishops protested. But they seem to have submitted almost at once. In the first decades of the third century, Rome impartially repelled opposing heresies, those which identified the three Persons of the Holy Trinity with only a modal distinction (Monarchians, Sabellians, "Patripassians"), and those who, on the contrary, made Christ a mere man, or seemed to ascribe to the Word of God a distinct being from that of the Father. This last conception, to our amazement, is assumed, it would appear, by the early Greek apologists, though in varying language; Athenagoras (who as an Athenian may have been in relation with the West) is the only one who asserts the Unity of the Trinity. Hippolytus (somewhat diversely in the "Contra Noetum" and in the "Philosophumena," if they are both his) taught the same division of the Son from the Father as traditional, and he records that Pope Callistus condemned him as a Ditheist.

Origen, like many of the others, makes the procession of the Word depend upon His office of Creator; and if he is orthodox enough to make the procession an eternal and necessary one, this is only because he regards Creation itself as necessary and eternal. His pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria, in combating the Sabellians, who admitted no real distinctions in the Godhead, manifested the characteristic weakness of the Greek theology, but some of his own Egyptians were more correct than their patriarch, and appealed to Rome. The Alexandrian listened to the Roman Dionysius, for all respected the unchanging tradition and unblemished orthodoxy of the See of Peter; his apology accepts the word "consubstantial", and he explains, no doubt sincerely, that he had never meant anything else; but he had learnt to see more clearly, without recognizing how unfortunately worded were his earlier arguments. He was not present when a council, mainly of Origenists, justly condemned Paul of Samosata (268); and these bishops, holding the traditional Eastern view, refused to use the word "consubstantial" as being too like Sabellianism. The Arians, disciples of Lucian, rejected (as did the more moderate Eusebius of Caesarea) the eternity of Creation, and they were logical enough to argue that consequently "there was (before time was) when the Word was not", and that He was a creature. All Christendom was horrified; but the East was soon appeased by vague explanations, and after Nicaea, real, undisguised Arianism hardly showed its head for nearly forty years. The highest point of orthodoxy that the East could reach is shown in the admirable lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. There is one God, he teaches, that is the Father, and His Son is equal to Him in all things, and the Holy Ghost is adored with Them; we cannot separate Them in our worship. But he does not ask himself how there are not three Gods; he will not use the Nicene word "consubstantial", and he never suggests that there is one Godhead common to the three Persons.

If we turn to the Latins all is different. The essential Monotheism of Christianity is not saved in the West by saying there is "one God the Father", as in all the Eastern creeds, but the theologians teach the unity of the Divine essence, in which subsist three Persons. If Tertullian and Novatian use subordinationist language of the Son (perhaps borrowed from the East), it is of little consequence in comparison with their main doctrine, that there is one substance of the Father and of the Son. Callistus excommunicates equally those who deny the distinction of Persons, and those who refuse to assert the unity of substance. Pope Dionysius is shocked that his namesake did not use the word "consubstantial" -- this is more than sixty years before Nicaea. At that great council a Western bishop has the first place, with two Roman priests, and the result of the discussion is that the Roman word "consubstantial" is imposed up on all. In the East the council is succeeded by a conspiracy of silence; the Orientals will not use the word. Even Alexandria, which had kept to the doctrine of Dionysius of Rome, is not convinced that the policy was good, and Athanasius spends his life in fighting for Nicaea, yet rarely uses the crucial word. It takes half a century for the Easterns to digest it; and when they do so, they do not make the most of its meaning. It is curious how little interest even Athanasius shows in the Unity of the Trinity, which he scarcely mentions except when quoting the Dionysii; it is Didymus and the Cappadocians who word Trinitarian doctrine in the manner since consecrated by the centuries -- three hypostases, one usia; but this is merely the conventional translation of the ancient Latin formula, though it was new to the East.

If we look back at the three centuries, second, third, and fourth of which we have been speaking, we shall see that the Greek-speaking Church taught the Divinity of the Son, and Three inseparable Persons, and one God the Father, without being able philosophically to harmonize these conceptions. The attempts which were made were sometimes condemned as heresy in the one direction or the other, or at best arrived at unsatisfactory and erroneous explanations, such as the distinction of the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos or the assertion of the eternity of Creation. The Latin Church preserved always the simple tradition of three distinct Persons and one divine Essence. We must judge the Easterns to have started from a less perfect tradition, for it would be too harsh to accuse them of wilfully perverting it. But they show their love of subtle distinctions at the same time that they lay bare their want of philosophical grasp. The common people talked theology in the streets; but the professional theologians did not see that the root of religion is the unity of God, and that, so far, it is better to be a Sabellian than a Semi-Arian. There is something mythological about their conceptions, even in the case of Origen, however important a thinker he may be in comparison with other ancients. His conceptions of Christianity dominated the East for some time, but an Origenist Christianity would never have influenced the modern world.

The Latin conception of theological doctrine, on the other hand, was by no means a mere adherence to an uncomprehended tradition. The Latins in each controversy of these early centuries seized the main point, and preserved it at all hazards. Never for an instant did they allow the unity of God to be obscured. The equality of the Son and his consubstantiality were seen to be necessary to that unity. The Platonist idea of the need of a mediator between the transcendent God and Creation does not entangle them, for they were too clear-headed to suppose that there could be anything half-way between the finite and the infinite. In a word, the Latins are philosophers, and the Easterns are not. The East can speculate and wrangle about theology, but it cannot grasp a large view. It is in accordance with this that it was in the West, after all the struggle was over, that the Trinitarian doctrine was completely systematized by Augustine; in the West, that the Athanasian creed was formulated. The same story repeats itself in the fifth century. The philosophical heresy of Pelagius arose in the West, and in the West only could it have been exorcized. The schools of Antioch and Alexandria each insisted on one side of the question as to the union of the two Natures in the Incarnation; the one School fell into Nestorianism, the other into Eutychianism, though the leaders were orthodox. But neither Cyril nor the great Theodoret was able to rise above the controversy, and express the two complementary truths in one consistent doctrine. They held what St. Leo held; but, omitting their interminable arguments and proofs, the Latin writer words the true doctrine once for all, because he sees it philosophically. No wonder that the most popular of the Eastern Fathers has always been untheological Chrysostom, whereas the most popular of the Western Fathers is the philosopher Augustine. Whenever the East was severed from the West, it contributed nothing to the elucidation and development of dogma, and when united, its contribution was mostly to make difficulties for the West to unravel.

But the West has continued without ceasing its work of exposition and evolution. After the fifth century there is not much development or definition in the patristic period; the dogmas defined needed only a reference to antiquity. But again and again Rome had to impose her dogmas on Byzantium -- 519, 680, and 786 are famous dates, when the whole Eastern Church had to accept a papal document for the sake of reunion, and the intervals between these dates supply lesser instances. The Eastern Church had always possessed a traditional belief in Roman tradition and in the duty of recourse to the See of Peter; the Arians expressed it when they wrote to Pope Julius to deprecate interference -- Rome, they said, was "the metropolis of the faith from the beginning". In the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries the lesson had been learnt thoroughly, and the East proclaimed the papal prerogatives, and appealed to them with a fervour which experience had taught to be in place. In such a sketch as this, all elements cannot be taken into consideration. It is obvious that Eastern theology had a great and varied influence on Latin Christendom. But the essential truth remains that the West thought more clearly than the East, while preserving with greater faithfulness a more explicit tradition as to cardinal dogmas, and that the West imposed her doctrines and her definitions on the East, and repeatedly, if necessary, reasserted and reimposed them.

F. Discipline, Liturgy, Ascetics. According to tradition, the multiplication of bishoprics, so that each city had its own bishop, began in the province of Asia, under the direction of St. John. The development was uneven. There may have been but one see in Egypt at the end of the second century, though there were large numbers in all the provinces of Asia Minor, and a great many in Phoenicia and Palestine. Groupings under metropolitan sees began in that century in the East, and in the third century this organization was recognized as a matter of course. Over metropolitans are the patriarchs. This method of grouping spread to the West. At first Africa had the most numerous sees; in the middle of the third century there were about a hundred, and they quickly increased to more than four times that number. But each province of Africa had not a metropolitan see; only a presidency was accorded to the senior bishop, except in Proconsularis, where Carthage was the metropolis of the province and her bishop was the first of all Africa. His rights are undefined, though his influence was great. But Rome was near, and the pope had certainly far more actual power, as well as more recognized right, than the primate; we see this in Tertullian's time, and it remains true in spite of the resistance of Cyprian. The other countries, Italy, Spain, Gaul, were gradually organized according to the Greek model, and the Greek metropolis, patriarch, were adapted. Councils were held early in the West. But disciplinary canons were first enacted in the East. St. Cyprian's large councils passed no canons, and that saint considered that each bishop is answerable to God alone for the government of his diocese; in other words, he knows no canon law. The foundation of Latin canon law is in the canons of Eastern councils, which open the Western collections. in spite of this, we need not suppose the East was more regular, or better governed, than the West, where the popes guarded order and justice. But the East had larger communities, and they had developed more fully, and therefore the need arose earlier there to commit definite rules to writing.

The florid taste of the East soon decorated the liturgy with beautiful excrescences. Many such excellent practices moved Westward; the Latin rites borrowed prayers and songs, antiphons, antiphonal singing, the use of the alleluia, of the doxology, etc. If the East adopted the Latin Christmas Day, the West imported not merely the Greek Epiphany, but feast after feast, in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. The West joined in devotion to Eastern martyrs. The special honour and love of Our Lady is at first characteristic of the East (except Antioch), and then conquers the West. The parcelling of the bodies of the saints as relics for devotional purposes, spread all over the West from the East; only Rome held out, until the time of St. Gregory the Great, against what might be thought an irreverence rather than an honour to the saints. If the first three centuries are full of pilgrimages to Rome from the East, yet from the fourth century onward West joins with East in making Jerusalem the principal goal of such pious journeys; and these voyagers brought back much knowledge of the East to the most distant parts of the West. Monasticism began in Egypt with Paul and Anthony, and spread from Egypt to Syria; St. Athanasius brought the knowledge of it to the West, and the Western monachism of Jerome and Augustine, of Honoratus and Martin, of Benedict and Columba, always looked to the East, to Anthony and Pachomius and Hilarion, and above all to Basil, for its most perfect models. Edifying literature in the form of the lives of the saints began with Athanasius, and was imitated by Jerome. But the Latin writers, Rufinus and Cassian, gave accounts of Eastern monachism, and Palladius and the later Greek writers were early translated into Latin. Soon indeed there were lives of Latin saints, of which that of St. Martin was the most famous, but the year 600 had almost come when St. Gregory the Great felt it still necessary to protest that as good might be found in Italy as in Egypt and Syria, and published his dialogues to prove his point, by supplying edifying stories of his own country to put beside the older histories of the monks. It would be out of place here to go more into detail in these subjects. Enough has been said to show that the West borrowed, with open-minded simplicity and humility, from the elder East all kinds of practical and useful ways in ecclesiastical affairs and in the Christian life. The converse influence in practical matters of West on East was naturally very small.

G. Historical Materials. The principal ancient historians of the patristic period were mentioned above. They cannot always be completely trusted. The continuators of Eusebius, that is, Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, are not to be compared to Eusebius himself, for that industrious prelate has fortunately bequeathed to us rather a collection of invaluable materials than a history. His "Life" or rather "Panegyric of Constantine" is less remarkable for its contents than for its politic omissions. Eusebius found his materials in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea, and still more in that left by Bishop Alexander at Jerusalem. He cites earlier collections of documents, the letters of Dionysius of Corinth, Dionysius of Alexandria, Serapion of Antioch, some of the epistles sent to Pope Victor by councils throughout the Church, besides employing earlier writers of history or memoirs such as Papias, Hegesippus, Apollonius, an anonymous opponent of the Montanists, the "Little Labyrinth "of Hippolytus (?), etc. The principal additions we can still make to these precious remnants are, first, St. Irenaeus on the heresies; then the works of Tertullian, full of valuable information about the controversies of his own time and place and the customs of the Western Church, and containing also some less valuable information about earlier matters -- less valuable, because Tertullian is singularly careless and deficient in historical sense. Next, we possess the correspondence of St. Cyprian, comprising letters of African councils, of St. Cornelius and others, besides those of the saint himself. To all this fragmentary information we can add much from St. Epiphanius, something from St. Jerome and also from Photius and Byzantine chronographers. The whole Ante-Nicene evidence has been catalogued with wonderful industry by Harnack, with the help of Preuschen and others, in a book of 1021 pages, the first volume of his invaluable "History of Early Christian Literature". In the middle of the fourth century, St. Epiphanius's book on heresies is learned but confused; it is most annoying to think how useful it would have been had its pious author quoted his authorities by name, as Eusebius did. As it is, we can with difficulty, if at all, discover whether his sources are to be depended on or not. St. Jerome's lives of illustrious men are carelessly put together, mainly from Eusebius, but with additional information of great value, where we can trust its accuracy. Gennadius of Marseilles continued this work with great profit to us. The Western cataloguers of heresies, such as Philastrius, Praedestinatus, and St. Augustine, are less useful.

Collections of documents are the most important matter of all. In the Arian controversy the collections published by St. Athanasius in his apologetic works are first-rate authorities. Of those put together by St. Hilary only fragments survive. Another dossier by the Homoiousian Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, was known to Socrates, and we can trace its use by him. A collection of documents connected with the origins of Donatism was made towards the beginning of the fourth century, and was appended by St. Optatus to his great work. Unfortunately only a part is preserved; but much of the lost matter is quoted by Optatus and Augustine. A pupil of St. Augustine, Marius Mercator, happened to be at Constantinople during the Nestorian controversy, and he formed an interesting collection of pièces justificatives. He put together a corresponding set of papers bearing on the Pelagian controversy. Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre, amassed documents bearing on Nestonianism, as a brief in his own defence. These have been preserved to us in the reply of an opponent, who has added a great number. Another kind of collection is that of letters. St. Isidore's and St. Augustine's are immensely numerous, but bear little upon history. There is far more historical matter in those (for instance) of Ambrose and Jerome, Basil and Chrysostom. Those of the popes are numerous, and of first-rate value; and the large collections of them also contain letters addressed to the popes. The correspondence of Leo and of Hormisdas is very complete. Besides these collections of papal letters and the decretals, we have separate collections, of which two are important, the Collectio Avellana, and that of Stephen of Larissa.

Councils supply another great historical source. Those of Nicaea, Sardica, Constantinople, have left us no Acts, only some letters and canons. Of the later oecumenical councils we have not only the detailed Acts, but also numbers of letters connected with them. Many smaller councils have also been preserved in the later collections; those made by Ferrandus of Carthage and Dionysius the Little deserve special mention. In many cases the Acts of one council are preserved by another at which they were read. For example, in 418, a Council of Carthage recited all the canons of former African plenary councils in the presence of a papal legate; the Council of Chalcedon embodies all the Acts of the first session of the Robber Council of Ephesus, and the Acts of that session contained the Acts of two synods of Constantinople. The later sessions of the Robber Council (preserved only in Syriac) contain a number of documents concerning inquiries and trials of prelates. Much information of various kinds has been derived of late years from Syriac and Coptic sources, and even from the Arabic, Armenian, Persian, Ethiopia and Slavonic. It is not necessary to speak here of the patristic writings as sources for our knowledge of Church organization, ecclesiastical geography, liturgies. canon law and procedure, archaeology, etc. The sources are, however, much the same for all these branches as for history proper.

IV. PATRISTIC STUDY

A. Editors of the Fathers. The earliest histories of patristic literature are those contained in Eusebius and in Jerome's "De viris illustribus". They were followed by Gennadius, who continued Eusebius, by St. Isidore of Seville, and by St. Ildephonsus of Toledo. In the Middle Ages the best known are Sigebert of the monastery of Gembloux (d. 1112), and Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim and of Würzburg (d. 1516). Between these come an anonymous monk of Melk (Mellicensis, c. 1135) and Honorius of Autun (1122-5). Ancient editors are not wanting; for instance, many anonymous works, like the Pseudo-Clementines and Apostolic Constitutions, have been remodelled more than once; the translators of Origen (Jerome, Rufinus, and unknown persons) cut out, altered, added; St. Jerome published an expurgated edition of Victoninus "On the Apocalypse". Pamphilus made a list of Origen's writings, and Possidius did the same for those of Augustine.

The great editions of the Fathers began when printing had become common. One of the earliest editors was Faber Stapulensis (Lefèvre d'Estaples), whose edition of Dionysius the Areopagite was published in 1498. The Belgian Pamèle (1536-87) published much. The controversialist Feuardent, a Franciscan (1539-1610) did some good editing. The sixteenth century produced gigantic works of history. The Protestant "Centuriators" of Magdeburg described thirteen centuries in as many volumes (1559-74). Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607) replied with his famous "Annales Ecclesiastici", reaching to the year 1198 (12 vols., 1588-1607). Marguerin de la Bigne, a doctor of the Sorbonne (1546-89), published his "Bibliotheca veterum Patrum" (9 vols., 1577-9) to assist in refuting the Centuriators.

The great Jesuit editors were almost in the seventeenth century; Gretserus (1562-1625), Fronto Ducaeus (Fronton du Duc, 1558-1624), Andreas Schott (1552-1629), were diligent editors of the Greek Fathers. The celebrated Sirmond (1559-1651) continued to publish Greek Fathers and councils and much else, from the age of 51 to 92. Denis Petau (Petavius, 1583-1652) edited Greek Fathers, wrote on chronology, and produced an incomparable book of historical theology, "De theologicis dogmatibus" (1044). To these may be added the ascetic Halloix (1572-1656), the uncritical Chifflet (1592-1682), and Jean Garnier, the historian of the Pelagians (d. 1681). The greatest work of the Society of Jesus is the publication of the "Acta Sanctorum", which has now reached the beginning of November, in 64 volumes. It was planned by Rosweyde (1570-1629) as a large collection of lives of saints; but the founder of the work as we have it is the famous John van Bolland (1596-1665). He was joined in 1643 by Henschenius and Papebrochius (1628-1714), and thus the Society of Bollandists began, and continued, in spite of the suppression of the Jesuits, until the French Revolution, 1794. It was happily revived in 1836 (see Bollandists). Other Catholic editors were Gerhard Voss (d. 1609), Albaspinaeus (De l'Aubespine, Bishop of Orléans, 1579-1630), Rigault (1577-1654), and the Sorbonne doctor Cotelier (1629-86). The Dominican Combéfis (1605-79) edited Greek Fathers, added two volumes to de la Bigne's collection, and made collections of patristic sermons. The layman Valesius (de Valois, 1603-70) was of great eminence.

Among Protestants may be mentioned the controversialist Clericus (Le Clerc, 1657-1736); Bishop Fell of Oxford (1625-86), the editor of Cyprian, with whom must be classed Bishop Pearson and Dodwell; Grabe (1666-1711), a Prussian who settled in England; the Calvinist Basnage (1653-1723). The famous Gallican Etienne Baluze (1630-1718), was an editor of great industry. The Provençal Franciscan, Pagi, published an invaluable commentary on Baronius in 1689-1705. But the greatest historical achievement was that of a secular priest, Louis Le Nain de Tillemont, whose "Histoire des Empereurs" (6 vols., 1690) and "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles" (16 vols., 1693) have never been superseded or equalled. Other historians are Cardinal H. Noris (1631-1704); Natalis Alexander (1639-1725), a Dominican; Fleury (in French, 1690-1719). To these must be added the Protestant Archbishop Ussher of Dublin (1580-1656), and many canonists, such as Van Espen, Du Pin, La Marca, and Christianus Lupus. The Oratorian Thomassin wrote on Christian antiquities (1619-95); the English Bingham composed a great work on the same subject (1708-22). Holstein (1596-1661), a convert from Protestantism, was librarian at the Vatican, and published collections of documents. The Oratorian J. Morin (1597-1659) published a famous work on the history of Holy orders, and a confused one on that of penance. The chief patristic theologian among English Protestants is Bishop Bull, who wrote a reply to Petavius's views on the development of dogma, entitled "Defensio fidei Nicaenae" (1685). The Greek Leo Allatius (1586-1669), custos of the Vatican Library, was almost a second Bessarion. He wrote on dogma and on the ecclesiastical books of the Greeks. A century later the Maronite J. S. Assemani (1687-1768) published amongst other works a "Bibliotheca Orientalis" and an edition of Ephrem Syrus. His nephew edited an immense collection of liturgies. The chief liturgiologist of the seventeenth century is the Blessed Cardinal Tommasi, a Theatine (1649-1713, beatified 1803), the type of a saintly savant.

The great Benedictines form a group by themselves, for (apart from Dom Calmet, a Biblical scholar, and Dom Ceillier, who belonged to the Congregation of St-Vannes) all were of the Congregation of St-Maur, the learned men of which were drafted into the Abbey of St-Germain-des-Prés at Paris. Dom Luc d'Achéry (1605-85) is the founder ("Spicilegium", 13 vols.); Dom Mabillon (1632-1707) is the greatest name, but he was mainly occupied with the early Middle Ages. Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) has almost equal fame (Athanasius, Hexapla of Origen, Chrysostom, Antiquities, Palaeography). Dom Coustant (1654-1721) was the principal collaborator, it seems, in the great edition of St. Augustine (1679-1700; also letters of the Popes, Hilary). Dom Garet (Cassiodorus, 1679), Du Friche (St Ambrose, 1686-90), Martianay (St. Jerome, 1693-1706, less successful), Delarue (Origen, 1733-59), Maran (with Toutée, Cyril of Jerusalem, 1720; alone, the Apologists, 1742; Gregory Nazianzen, unfinished), Massuet (Irenaeus, 1710), Ste-Marthe (Gregory the Great, 1705), Julien Garnier (St. Basil, 1721-2), Ruinart (Acta Martyrum sincera, 1689, Victor Vitensis, 1694, and Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, 1699), are all well-known names. The works of Martène (1654-1739) on ecclesiastical and monastic rites (1690 and 1700-2) and his collections of anecdota (1700, 1717, and 1724-33) are most voluminous; he was assisted by Durand. The great historical works of the Benedictines of St-Maur need not be mentioned here, but Dom Sabatier's edition of the Old Latin Bible, and the new editions of Du Cange's glossaries must be noted. For the great editors of collections of councils see under the names mentioned in the bibliography of the article on Councils.

In the eighteenth century may be noted Archbishop Potter (1674-1747, Clement of Alexandria). At Rome Arevalo (Isidore of Seville, 1797-1803); Gallandi, a Venetian Oratorian (Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, 1765-81). The Veronese scholars form a remarkable group. The historian Maffei (for our purpose his "anecdota of Cassiodorus" are to be noted, 1702), Vallarsi (St. Jerome, 1734-42, a great work, and Rufinus, 1745), the brothers Ballerini (St. Zeno, 1739; St. Leo, 1753-7, a most remarkable production), not to speak of Bianchini, who published codices of the Old Latin Gospels, and the Dominican Mansi, Archbishop of Lucca, who re-edited Baronius, Fabricius, Thomassinus, Baluze, etc., as well as the "Collectio Amplissima" of councils. A general conspectus shows us the Jesuits taking the lead c. 1590-1650, and the Benedictines working about 1680-1750. The French are always in the first place. There are some sparse names of eminence in Protestant England; a few in Germany; Italy takes the lead in the second half of the eighteenth century. The great literary histories of Bellarmine, Fabricius, Du Pin, Cave, Oudin, Schram, Lumper, Ziegelbauer, and Schoenemann will be found below in the bibliography. The first half of the nineteenth century was singularly barren of patristic study; nevertheless there were marks of the commencement of the new era in which Germany takes the head. The second half of the nineteenth was exceptionally and increasingly prolific. It is impossible to enumerate the chief editors and critics. New matter was poured forth by Cardinal Mai (1782-1854) and Cardinal Pitra (1812- 89), both prefects of the Vatican Library. Inedita in such quantities seem to be found no more, but isolated discoveries have come frequently and still come; Eastern libraries, such as those of Mount Athos and Patmos, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai, have yielded unknown treasures, while the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc., have supplied many losses supposed to be irrecoverable. The sands of Egypt have given something, but not much, to patrology.

The greatest boon in the way of editing has been the two great patrologies of the Abbé Migne (1800-75). This energetic man put the works of all the Greek and Latin Fathers within easy reach by the "Patrologia Latina" (222 vols., including 4 vols. of indexes) and the "Patrologia Graeca" (161 vols). The Ateliers Catholiques which he founded produced wood-carving, pictures, organs, etc., but printing was the special work. The workshops were destroyed by a disastrous fire in 1868, and the recommencement of the work was made impossible by the Franco-German war. The "Monumenta Germaniae", begun by the Berlin librarian Pertz, was continued with vigour under the most celebrated scholar of the century, Theodor Mommsen. Small collections of patristic works are catalogued below. A new edition of the Latin Fathers was undertaken in the sixties by the Academy of Vienna. The volumes published up till now have been uniformly creditable works which call up no particular enthusiasm. At the present rate of progress some centuries will be needed for the great work. The Berlin Academy has commenced a more modest task, the re-editing of the Greek Ante-Nicene writers, and the energy of Adolf Harnack is ensuring rapid publication and real success. The same indefatigable student, with von Gebhardt, edits a series of "Texte und Untersuchungen", which have for a part of their object to be the organ of the Berlin editors of the Fathers. The series contains many valuable studies, with much that would hardly have been published in other countries.

The Cambridge series of "Texts and Studies" is younger and proceeds more slowly, but keeps at a rather higher level. There should be mentioned also the Italian "Studii e Testi", in which Mercati and Pio Franchi de' Cavalieri collaborate. In England, in spite of the slight revival of interest in patristic studies caused by the Oxford Movement, the amount of work has not been great. For learning perhaps Newman is really first in the theological questions. As critics the Cambridge School, Westcott, Hort, and above all Lightfoot, are second to none. But the amount edited has been very small, and the excellent "Dictionary of Christian Biography" is the only great work published. Until 1898 there was absolutely no organ for patristic studies, and the "Journal of Theological Studies" founded in that year would have found it difficult to survive financially without the help of the Oxford University Press. But there has been an increase of interest in these subjects of late years, both among Protestants and Catholics, in England and in the United States. Catholic France has lately been coming once more to the fore, and is very nearly level with Germany even in output. In the last fifty years, archaeology has added much to patristic studies; in this sphere the greatest name is that of De Rossi.

B. The Study of the Fathers. The helps to study, such as Patrologies, lexical information, literary histories, are mentioned below.

COLLECTIONS:-- The chief collections of the Fathers are the following: DE LA BIGNE, Bibliotheca SS. PP. (5 vols. fol., Paris, 1575, and App., 1579; 4th ed., 10 vols., 1624, with Auctarium, 2 vols., 1624, and Suppl., 1639, 5th and 6th edd., 17 vols. fol., 1644 and 1654); this great work is a supplement of over 200 writings to the editions till then published of the Fathers; enlarged ed. hy UNIV. OF COLOGNE (Cologne, 1618, 14 vols., and App., 1622); the Cologne ed. enlarged by 100 writings, in 27 folio vols. (Lyons, 1677). COMBEFIS, Graeco-Latinae Patrum Bibliothecae novum Auctarium (2 vols., Paris, 1648), and Auctarium novissimum (2 vols., Paris, 1672); D'Achéry, Veterum aliquot scriptorum Spicilegium (13 vols. 4to, Paris, 1655-77, and 3 vols. fol., 1723), mostly of writings later than patristic period, as is also the case with BALUZE, Miscellanea (7 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1678-1715); re-ed. by MANSI (4 vols. fol., Lucca, 1761-4); SIRMOND, Opera varia nunc primum collecta (5 vols. fol., Paris, 1696, and Venice, 1728); MURATORI, Anecdota from the Ambrosian Libr. at Milan (4 vols. 4to, Milan, 1697-8; Padua, 1713); IDEM, Anecdota graeca (Padua, 1709); GRABE, Spicilegium of Fathers of the first and second centuries (Oxford, 1698-9, 1700, and enlarged, 1714); GALLANDI, Bibl. vet. PP., an enlarged edition of the Lyons ed. of de la Bigne (14 vols. fol., Venice, 1765-88, and index puhl. at Bologna, 1863) -- nearly all the contents are reprinted in MIGNE; OBERTHÜR, SS. Patrum opera polemica de veriate religionis christ. c. Gent. et Jud. (21 vols. 8vo, Würzburg, 1777-94); IDEM, Opera omnia SS. Patrum Latinorum (13 vols., Würzburg, 1789-91); ROUTH, Reliquiae sacrae, second and third centuries (4 vols., Oxford, 1814-18; in 5 vols., 1846-8); IDEM, Scriptorum eccl. opuscula praeipua (2 vols., Oxford, 1832, 3rd vol., 1858); MAT, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio (unpubl. matter from Vatican MSS., 10 vols. 4to, 1825-38); IDEM, Spicileqium Romanum (10 vols. Svo, Rome, 1839-44); IDEM, Nova Patrum Bibtiotheca (7 vols. 4to, Rome, 1844-54; vol. 8 completed by COZZA-LUZI, 1871, vol. 9 by COZZA-LUZI, 1888, App. ad opera ed. ab A. Maio, Rome, 1871, App. altera, 1871). A few eccl. writings in MAI's Classici auctores (10 vols., Rome, 1828-38); CAILLAU, Collectio selecta SS. Ecclesia Patrum (133 vols. em. 8vo, Paris, 1829-42); GERSDORF, Bibl. Patrum eccl. lat. selecta (13 vols., Leipzig, 1838-47); the Oxford Bibliotheca Patrum reached 10 vols. (Oxford, 1838-55); PITRA, Spicilegium Solesmense (4 vols. 4to, Paris, 1852-8). The number of these various collections, in addition to the works of the great Fathers, made it difficult to obtain a complete set of patristic writings. MIGNE supplied the want by collecting almost all the foregoing (except the end of the last mentioned work, and Mais later volumes) into his complete editions: Patrologiae cursus completus, Series latine (to Innocent III, A.D. 1300, 221 vols. 4to, including four vols. of indexes, 1844-55), Series graeco-latine (to the Council of Florence, A.D. 1438-9, 161 vols. 4to, 1857-66, and another rare vol. of additions, 1866); the Series graece was also published, in Latin only, in 81 vols.; there is no index in the Series grace; an alphabetical list of contents by SCHOLAREOS (Athens, 1879, useful); other publications, not included in Migne, by PITRA, are Juris ecclesiastici Graecarum hist. et monum. (2 vols., Rome, 1864-8); Analecta sacra (6 vols., numbered I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, Paris, 1876-84); Analecta sacra et classica (Paris, 1888); Analecta novissima, medieval (2 vols., 1885-8); the new edition of Latin Fathers is called Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum consilio et impensis Academiae litterarum Caesarea Vindobonensis (Vienna, 1866, 8vo, in progress); and of the Greek Fathers: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderten, herausgegeben von der Kirchenvätter-Kommission den Königl. preussiechen Akad. den Wise. (Berlin, 1897, large 8vo, in progress). Of the Monumenta Germaniae historica, one portion, the Auctores antiquissimi (Berlin, 1877-98), contains works of the sixth century which connect themselves with patrology. Small modern collections are HURTER, SS. Patrum opuscula selecta, with a few good notes (Innebruck, 1st series, 48 vols., 1868-85, 2nd series, 6 vols.. 1884-92) -- these little books have been deservedly popular; KRÜGER, Semmlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenechriften (Freiburg, 1891-); RAUSCHEN, Florilegium patristicum, of first and second centuries (3 fasc., Bonn, 1904-5); Cambridge patristic texts (I, The Five Theol. Orat. of Greg. Naz., ed. MASON, 1899; II, The Catech. Or. of Greg. Nyssen., ed. SRAWLEY, 1903; Dionysius Alex., ed. FELTRE, 1904, in progress); VIZZINI, Bibl. SS. PP. Theologiae tironibus et universo clero accomodata (Rome, 1901- in progress); LIETZMANN, Kleine Texte, für theol. Vorlesungen und Uebungen (twenty-five numbers have appeared of about 16 pp. each, Bonn, 1902- in progress); an English ed. of the same (Cambridge, 1903-); Textes et documents pour l'étude historique du chrietienisme, ed. HEMMER AND LEJAY (texts, French tr., and notes, Paris, in progress -- an admirable series).

INITIA:-- For Greek and Latin writers up to Eusebius, the index to HARNACK, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I; for the Latin writers of first six centuries, AUMERS, Initia libronum PP. lat. (Vienna, 1865); and up to 1200, VATASSO, Initia PP. aliorumque scriptorum sect, lat. (2 vols., Vatican press, 1906-8).

LITERARY HISTORIES:-- The first is BELLARMINE, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1613, often reprinted; with additions by LABBE, Paris, 1660, and by OUDEN, Paris, 1686); DE PIN, Bibliothèque universelle des auteurs eccles. (61 vols. 8vo, or 19 vols. 4to, Paris, 1686, etc.); this was severely criticized by the Benedictine PETITDIDIER and by the Oratorian SIMON (Critique de la Bibl. des auteurs eccl. publ. pen ill. E. Dupin, Paris, 1730), and Du Pin's work was put on the Index in 1757; FABACCEUS, Bibliotheca Graece, sive edititia Scriptorum veterum Graecorum (Hamburg, 1705-28, 14 vols.; new ed. by HARLES, Hamburg, 1790-1809, 12 vols., embraces not quite 11 vole, of the original ed.; index to this ed., Leipzig, 1838) -- this great work is really a vast collection of materials; Fabricius was a Protestant (d. 1736); he made a smaller collection of the Latin lit. hist., Bibl. Latina, sive non. scr. vett, latt. (1697, 1708, 1712, etc., ed. by ERNESTI, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1773-4), and a continuation for the Middle Ages (1734-6, 5 vols.); the whole was re-edited by MANSI (6 vols., Padua, 1754, and Florence, 1858-9); LE NOURRY, Apparatus ad Biblioth. Max. vett. Patr. (2 vols. fol., Paris, 1703-15), deals with Greek Fathers of the second century and with Latin apologists; CEILLIER, Hist. générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclés. (from Moses to 1248, 23 vols., Paris, 1729-63; Table gén. des Met., by RONDET, Paris, 1782; new ed. 16 vols., Paris, 1858-69); SCHRAM, Analysis Operum SS. PP. et Scriptorum eccles. (Vienna, 1780-96, 18 vols., a valuable work); LUMPER, Hist. Theologico-critica de vitâ scriptis atque doctrina SS. PP. at scr. eccl. trium primorum saec. (Vienna, 1783-99, 13 vols.; a compilation, but good); the Anglican CAVE published a fine work, Scriptorum eccl. historia literaria (London, 1688; best ed., Oxford, 1740-3); OUDIN, a Premonstratensian, who became a Protestant, Commentarius de Scriptoribus eccl. (founded on Bellarmine, 3 vols. fol., Leipzig, 1722). On the editions of the Latin Fathers, SCHOENEMANN, Bibliotheca historico-litteraria Patrum Latinorum a Tert, ad Greg. M. at Isid. Hisp. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1792-4).

PATROLOGIES (smaller works):-- GERHARD, Patrologia (Jena, 1653); HÜLSEMANN, Patrologia (Leipzig, 1670); OLEARIUS, Abacus Patrologicus (Jena, 1673); these are old-fashioned Protestant books. German Catholic works are: GOLDWITZER, Bibliographie der Kirchenväter und Kirchenlehrer (Landshut, 1828); IDEM, Patrologie verbunden mi Patristik (Nuremberg, 1833-4); the older distinction in Germany between patrology, the knowledge of the Fathers and their use, and patristic, the science of the theology of the Fathers, is now somewhat antiquated; BUSSE, Grundriss der chr. Lit. (Münster, 1828-9); MÖHLER, Patrologie, an important posthumous work of this great man, giving the first three centuries (Ratisbon, 1840); PERMANEDER, Bibliotheca patristica (2 vols., Landshut, 1841-4); FESSLER, Institutiones Patrologiae (Innsbruck, 1851), a new ed. by JUNGMANN is most valuable (Innsbruck, 1890-6); ALZOG, Grundriss der Patrologie (Freiburg im Br., 1866 and 1888); same in French by BELET (Paris, 1867); NIRSCHL, Handbuch der Patrologie und Patristik (Mainz, 1881-5); RESBÁNYAY, Compendium Patrologiae et Patristicae (Funfkirchen in Hungary, 1894); CARVAJAL, Institutiones Patrologiae (Oviedo, 1906); BARDENHEWER, Patrologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894; new ed. 1901) -- this is at present by far the best handbook; the author is a professor in the Cath. theo. faculty of the Univ. of Munich; a French tr. by GODET AND VERSCHAFFEL, Les Pères de l'Église (3 vols., Paris, 1899); an Italian tr. by A. MERCATI (Rome, 1903); and an English tr. with the bibliography brought up to date, by SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br. and St. Louis, 1908); smaller works, insufficient for advanced students, but excellent for ordinary purposes, are: SCHMID, Grundlinien der Patrologie (1879; 4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1895); an Engl. tr. revised by SCHOBEL (Freiburg, 1900); SWETE of Cambridge, Patristic Study (London, 1902).

HISTORIES OF THE FATHERS:-- It is unnecessary to catalogue here all the general histories of the Church, large and small, from Baronius onwards; it will be sufficient to give some of those which deal specially with the Fathers and with ecclesiastical literature. The first and chief is the incomparable work of TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles (Paris, 1693-1712, 16 vols., and other editions); MARÉCHAL, Concordance des SS. Pères de l'Eglise, Grecs at Latins, a harmony of their theology (2 vols., Paris, 1739); BÄHR, Die christlich-römische Litteratur (4th vol. of Gesch. der römischen Litt., Karlsruhe, 1837; a new ed. of the first portion, 1872); SCHANZ, Gesch. der röm. Litt., Part III (Munich, 1896), 117-324; EBERT, Gech. der christlich-lateinischen Litt. (Leipzig, 1874; 2nd ed., 1889); Anciennes littératunes chrétiennes (in Bibliothèque de l'enseignement de l'hist. eccl., Paris): I; BATIFFOL, La littérature grecque, a useful sketch (4th ed., 1908), II; DUVAL, La littérature syriaque (3rd ed., 1908); LECLERCQ, L'Afrique chrétienne (in same Bibl. de l'ens. da l'h. eccl., 2nd ed., Paris, 1904); IDEM, L'Espagne chrétienne (2nd ed., 1906); BATIFFOL, L'église naissante et le Catholicisme, a fine apologetic account of the development of the Church, from the witness of the Fathers of the first three centuries (Paris, 1909); of general histories the best is Ducesesrese, Hist. ancienne eta tEglisa (2 vols. have appeared, Paris, 1906-7); finally, the first place is being taken among histories of the Fathers by a work to be completed in six volumes, BARDENHEWER, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur (I, to A.D. 200, Freiburg im Br., 1902; II, to A.D. 300, 1903). The following are Protestant: NEWMAN, The Church of the Fathers (London, 1840, etc.); DONALDSON, A critical history of Christian lit. . . . to the Nicene Council: I; The Apostolic Fathers, II and III; The Apologists (London, 1864-6 -- unsympathetic); BRICHY, The Age of the Fathers (2 vols., London, 1903); ZÖCKLER, Gesch. der theologischen Litt. (Patristik) (Nördlingen, 1889); CRUTTWELL, A Literary History of Early Christianity . . . Nicene Period (2 vols., London, 1893); KRÜGER, Gesch. der altchristlichen Litt, in den ersten 3 Jahrh. (Freiburg im Br. and Leipzig, 1895-7); tr. GILLET (New York, 1897) -- this is the beet modern German Prot. history. The following consists of materials: A. HARNACK, Gechichte der altchr. Litt, bis Eusebius, I, Die Ueberlieferung (Leipzig, 1893; this vol. enumerates all the known works of each writer, and all ancient references to them, and notices the MSS.); II, 1 (1897), and II, 2 (1904), Die Chronologie, discussing the date of each writing; the latter Greek period is dealt with by KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litt. 527-1453 (2nd ed. with assistance from EHRHARD, Munich, 1897). The following collected series of studies must be added: Textd und Untersuschungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Litt., ed. VON GEBHARDT AND A. HARNAcK (1st series, 15 vols., Leipzig, 1883-97, 2nd series, Neue Folge, 14 vols., 1897-1907, in progress) -- the editors are now HARNACK AND SCHMIDT; ROBINSON, Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1891 -- in progress); EHRHARD AND MÜLLER, Strassburger theologische Studien (12 vols., Freiburg im Br., 1894 -- in progress); EHRHARD AND KIRSCH, Forschungen zur christl. Litt. und Dogmengeschichte (7 vols., Paderborn, in progress); La Pensée chrétienne (Paris, in progress); Studii e Testi (Vatican press, in progress). Of histories of development of dogma, HARNACK, Dogmengeschichte (3 vols., 3rd ed., 1894-7, a new ed. is in the press; French tr., Paris, 1898; Engl. tr., 7 vols., Edinburgh, 1894-9), a very clever and rather "viewy" work; LOOFS, Leitfaden zum Studium der D. G. (Halle, 1889; 3rd ed., 1893); SEEBERG, Lehrb. der D. G. (2 vols., Erlangen, 1895), conservative Protestant; IDEM, Grundriss der D. G. (1900; 2nd ed., 1905), a smaller work: SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte, Catholic (2nd ed., 1892, etc.; French tr., Paris, 1903-4); BETHUNE-BAKER, Introduction to early History of Doctrine (London, 1903); TIXERONT, Histoire des Dogmas: I, La théologie anti-nicéenne (Paris, 1905 -- excellent); and others.

PHILOLOGICAL:-- On the common Greek of the early period see MOULTON, Grammar of N. T. Greek: I, Prolegomena (3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1909), and references; on the literary Greek, A.D. 1-250, SCHMIDT, Den Atticismus von Dion. Hal. bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (4 vols., Stuttgart, 1887-9); THUMB, Die griechieche Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (Strasburg, 1901). Besides the Thesaurus of STEPHANUS (latest ed., 8 vols., fol., Paris, 1831-65) and lexicons of classical and Biblical Greek, special dictionaries of later Greek are DU CANGE, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (2 vols., Lyons, 1688, and new ed., Breslan, 1890-1); SOPHOCLES, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 146-1100 (3rd ed., New York, 1888); words wanting in Stephanus and in Sophocles are collected by KUMANUDES (S. A. Koumanoudes), Sunagôgê lexeôn athêsauristôn en tois heggênikois lexikois (Athens, 1883); general remarks on Byzantine Greek in KNUMBACHER, op. cit. On patristic Latin, KOFFMANE, Gesch. des Kinchenlateins: I, Entstehung . . . bis auf Augustinus-Hieronymus (Breslau, 1879-81); NORDEN, Die antika Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898), II; there is an immense number of studies of the language of particular Fathers [e.g. HOPPE on Tertullian (1897); WATSON (1896) and BAYARD (1902) on Cyprian; GOELTZER on Jerome (1884); REGNER on Augustine (1886), etc.], and indices latinitatis to the volumes of the Vienna Corpus PP. latt.; TRAUBE, Quellen and Untensuchungen zur lat. Phil. des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1906); much will be found in Archiv für lat. Lexicographie, ed. WÖLFFLIN (Munich, began 1884).

TRANSLATIONS:-- Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, translated by members of the English Ch. (by PUSEY, NEWMAN, etc.), (45 vols., Oxford, 1832-). ROBERTS AND DONALDSON, The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (24 vols., Edinburgh, 1866-72; new ed. by COXE, Buffalo, 1884-6, with RICHARDSON's excellent Bibliographical Synopsis as a Suppl., 1887); SCHAFF AND WAGE, A Select Library of Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Chr. Ch., with good notes (14 vols., Buffalo and New York, 1886-90, and 2nd series, 1900, in progress).

ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND DICTIONARIES:-- SUICER, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, a patribus graecis ordine alphabetico exhibens quaecumqua phrases, ritus, dogmata, haereses et hujusmodi alia spectant (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1682; again 1728; and Utrecht, 1746); HOFFMANNS, Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammten Litt. der Griechen (3 vols., 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1838-45); the articles on early Fathers and heresies in the Encyclopadia Britannica (8th ed.) are, many of them, by Harnack and still worth reading; WETZER AND WELTE, Kirchenlex., ed. HERGENRÖTHER, and then by KAULEN and others, 12 vols., one vol. of index (Freiburg im Br., 1882-1903); HERZOG, Realencylopädie für prot. Theol. und Kirche, 3rd ed. by HAUCK (21 vols., 1896-1908); VACANT AND MANGENOT, Dict. de Théol. cath. (Paris, in progress); CABROL, Dict. d'archéologie chr. et de liturgie (Paris, in progress); BAUDRILLART, Dict. d'hist. at de géogr. ecclésiastiques (Paris, in progress); SMITH AND WACE, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, is very full and valuable (4 vols., London, 1877-87).

GENERAL BOOKS OF REFERENCE:-- ITTIG, De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum, gives the contents of the older collections of Fathers which were enumerated above (Leipzig, 1707); IDEM, Schediasma de auctoribus qui de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis egerunt (Leipzig, 1711); DOWLING, Notitia scriptorum SS. PP. . . . quae in collectionibus Anecdotorum post annum MDCC in lucem editis continentur (a continuation of ITTIG's De Bibl. et Cat., Oxford, 1839); an admirable modern work is EHRHARD, Die alt christliche Litt, und ihre Erforschung seit 1880: I, Allgemeine Uebersicht, 1880-4 (Freiburg im Br., 1894); II, Ante-Nicene lit., 1884-1900 (1900); the bibliographies in the works of HARNACK and of BARDENHEWER (see above) are excellent; for Ante-Nicene period, RICHARDSON, Bibliographical Synopsis (in extra vol. of Ante-Nicene. Fathers, Buffalo, 1887); for the whole period. CHEVALIER, Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen-âge: Bio-bibliographie, gives names of persons (2nd ed., Paris, 1905-07); Topo-bibliographie gives names of places and subjects (2nd ed., Paris, 1894-1903); progress each year is recorded in HOLTZMANN AND KRÜGER's Theologischer Jahresbericht from 1881; KROLL AND GURLITT, Jahresbericht für kleseische Alterthumewissenschaft (both Protestant); BIHLMEYER, Hagiagraphischer Jahresbericht for 1904-6 (Kempten and Munich, 1908). A very complete bibliography appears quarterly in the Revue d'hist. eccl. (Louvain, since 1900), with index at end of year; in this publ. the names of all Reviews dealing with patristic matters will be found.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Lawrence Arthur Faunt

A Jesuit theologian, b. 1554, d. at Wilna, Poland, 28 February, 1590-91. After two years at Merton College, Oxford (1568-70) under the tuition of John Potts, a well-known Philosopher, he went to the Jesuit college at Louvain where he took his B.A. After some time spent in Paris he entered the University of Munich under the patronage of Duke William of Bavaria, proceeding M.A. The date of his entrance into the Society of Jesus is disputed, some authorities giving 1570, others 1575, the year in which he went to the English College, Rome, to pursue his studies in theology. lt is certain, however, that on the latter occasion he added Lawrence to his baptisal name, Arthur. He was soon made professor of divinity and attracted the favourable attention of Gregory XIII, who on the establishment of the Jesuit college at Posen in 1581, appointed him rector. He was also professor of Greek there for three years of moral theology and controversy for nine more, are was held in highest repute among both ecclesiastical and secular authorities. His chief theological works are: "De Christi in terris Ecclesia, quaenam et penes quos existat" (Posen, 1584.), "Coenae Lutheranorum et Calvinistarum oppugnatio ac catholicae Eucharitiae defensio" (Posen, 1586); "Apologia libri sui de invocatione ac veneratione Sanctorum" (Cologne, 1589).

F.M. RUDGE

Charles-Claude Fauriel

A historian, b. at St-Etienne, France, 27 October, 1772; d. at Paris,15 July, 1844. He studied first at the Oratorian College of Tournon, then at Lyons. He served in the army of the Pyrénées-Orientales. Under the Directory Fouche, an ex-Oratorian, attached him to his cabinet as private secret secretary. Under the Empire, he refused office in order to devote all his time to study. Fauriel adopted the new ideas of the Philosophers and the principles of the Revolution, but repudiated them in part in the later years of his life. He was an intense worker and knew Greek, Latin, Italian, German, English, Sanskrit, and Arabic. It was he who made the merits of Ossian and Shakespeare known to the French public and spread in France the knowledge of German literature, which had been previously looked upon as unimportant. He was one of the first to investigate Romance literature, and the originality of his views in this direction soon popularized this new study. He also gathered the remnants of the ancient Basque and Celtic languages. The first works he published were a translation of "La Parthénéide" (Paris, 1811), an idyllic epic by the Danish poet, Baggesen, and of the tragedy of his friend Manzoni, "ll Conte di Carmagnola" (Paris, 1823). The numerous linguistic and archaeological contributions which he wrote for various magazines won for him a great reputation among scholars; it was said of him that "he was the man of the nineteenth century who put in circulation the most ideas, inaugurated the greatest number of branches of study, and gathered the greatest number of new results in historical science" (Revue des Deux Mondes, 15 Dec., 1853). The publication of the "Chants populaires de la Grece moderne", text and translation (Paris, 1824-25), at a moment when Greece was struggling for her independence, made him known to the general public. In 1880 a chair of foreign literature was created for him at the University of Paris. He studied specially the Southern literatures and Provencal poetry. His lectures were published after his death under the title of "Histoire de la poésie provençale" (3 vols, Paris, 1846). In order to study more deeply the origins of French civilization he wrote "Histoire de la Gaule méridionale sous la domination des conquérants germains" (4 vols., Paris, 1836), only a part of a vaster work conceived by him. The merit of these works caused him to be elected (1836), the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. He contributed also to the "Histoire Littéraire de la France", commenced by the Benedictines and taken after the Revolution by the Institute of France. Having been named assistant curator of the manuscript of Royal Library he published an historical poem in Provencal verse (with a translation and introduction), dealing with the crusade against the Albigenses.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Sts. Faustinus and Jovita

Martyrs, members of a noble family of Brescia; the elder brother, Faustinus, being a priest, the younger, a deacon. For their fearless preaching of the Gospel, they were arraigned before the Emperor Hadrian, who, first at Brescia, later at Rome and Naples, subjected them to frightful torments, after which they were beheaded at Bescia in the year 120, according to the Bollandists, though Allard (Histoire des Persécutions pendant les Deux Premiers Siècles, Paris, 1885) places the date as early as 118. The many "Acts" of these saints are chiefly of a legendary character. Fedele Savio, S.J. the most recent writer on the subject, calls in question nearly every fact related of them except their existince and martyrdom, which are too well attested by their inclusion in so many of the early martyrologies and their extraordinary cult in their native city, of which from time immemorial they have been the chief patrons. Rome, Bologna and Verona share with Brescia the possession of their relics. Their feast is celebrated on 15 February, the traditional date of their martyrdom.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Faustus of Riez

Bishop of Riez (Rhegium) in Southern Gaul (Provence), the best known and most distinguished defender of Semipelagianism, b. between 405 and 410, and according to his contemporaries, Avitus of Vienne and Sidonius Apollinaris, in the island of Britain; d. between 490 and 495. Nothing, however, is known about his early life or his education. He is thought by some to have been a lawyer but owing to the influence of his mother, famed for her sanctity, he abandoned secular pursuits while still a young man and entered the monastery of Lérins. Here he was soon ordained to the priesthood and because of his extraordinary piety was chosen (432) to be head of the monastery, in succession to Maximus who had become Bishop of Riez. His career as abbot lasted about twenty or twenty-five years during which he attained a high reputation for his wonderful gifts as an extempore preacher and for his stern asceticism. After the death of Maximus he became Bishop of Riez. This elevation did not make any change in his manner of life; he continued his ascetic practices, and frequently returned to the monastery of Lérins to renew his fervour. He was a zealous advocate of monasticism and established many monasteries in his diocese. In spite of his activity in the discharge of his duties as bishop, he participated in all the theological discussions of his time and became known as a stern opponent of Arianism in all its forms. For this, and also, it is said, for his view, stated below, of the corporeity of the human soul, he incurred the enmity of Euric, King of the Visigoths, who had gained possession of a large portion of Southern Gaul, and was banished from his see. His exile lasted eight years, during which time he was aided by loyal friends. On the death of Euric he resumed his labours at the head of his diocese and continued there until his death. Throughout his life Faustus was an uncompromising adversary of Pelagius, whom he styled Pestifer, and equally decided in his opposition to the doctrine of Predestination which he styled "erroneous, blasphemous, heathen, fatalistic, and conducive to immorality". This doctrine in its most repulsive form had been expounded by a presbyter named Lucidus and was condemned by two synods, Arles and Lyons (475). At the request of the bishops who composed these synods, and especially Leontius of Arles, Faustus wrote a work, "Libri duo de Gratiâ Dei et humanae mentis libero arbitrio", in which he refuted not only the doctrines of the Predestinarians but also those of Pelagius (P.L., LVIII, 783). The work was marred, however, by its decided Semipelagianism, for several years was bitterly attacked, and was condemned by the Synod of Orange in 529 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, Freiburg, 1908, no. 174 sqq. - old no. 144; PL.L., XLV, 1785; Mansi, VIII, 712). Besides this error, Faustus maintained that the human soul is in a certain sense corporeal, God alone being a pure spirit. The opposition to Faustus was not fully developed in his lifetime and he died with a well-merited reputation for sanctity. His own flock considered him a saint and erected a basilica in his honour. Faustus wrote also: "Libri duo de Spiritu Sancto" (P.L., LXII, 9), wrongly ascribed to the Roman deacon Paschasius. His "Libellus parvus adversus Arianos et Macedonianos", mentioned by Genadius, seems to have perished. His correspondence (epistulae) and sermons are best found in the new and excellent edition of the works of Faustus by Engelbrecht, "Fausti Reiensis praeter sermones pseudo-Eusebianos opera. Accedunt Ruricii Epistulae" in "Corpus Scrip. eccles. lat.", vol. XXI (Vienna, 1891).

PATRICK J. HEALY

Faversham Abbey

A former Benedictine monastery of the Cluniac Congregation situated in the County of Kent about nine miles west of Canterbury. It was founded about 1147 by King Stephen and his Queen Matilda. Clarimbald, the prior of Bermondsey, and twelve other monks of the same abbey were transferred to Faversham to form the new community; Clarimbald was appointed abbot. It was dedicated to Our Saviour and endowed with the manor of Faversham. In the church, which was completed about 1251, Stephen and Matilda, the founders, were buried and also their eldest son Eustace Earl of Boulogne. We read of chapels in the church dedicated to Our Lady and St. Anne. Henry II confirmed all grants and privileges conferred by Stephen, adding others to them, and all these were again confirmed to the monks by Kings John and Henry III. The abbots had their seat in Parliament and we find them in attendance at thirteen several parliaments during the reigns of Edward and Edward II, but on account of their reduced state and poverty, they ceased to attend after the 18th, Edward II. It appears that some bitterness existed for a considerable time between the monks and the people of Faversham, who complained of the abbey's imposts and exactions. Among these grievances were claims, by way of composition, for allowing the inhabitants to send their swine to pannage, for exposing their goods for sale in the market, and for the liberty of brewing beer. Twenty-two abbots are known to us; the last was John Shepey, alias Castelocke, who, on 10 December, 1534, along with the sacristan and four monks, is said to have signed the Act of Supremacy. On 8 July, 1538, the abbey was surrendered to the king, at which time the annual revenue was about £350. Henry VIII gave the house and site to John Wheler for twenty-one years at an annual rent of £3 18s. 8d. Afterwards the property came into the possession of Sir Thomas Cheney, warden of the Cinque Ports. Later it was owned by Thomas Ardern and subsequently came to belong to the family of Sondes. The two entrance gates where standing a century ago, but had to be taken down on account of their ruinous condition. At the present day there is nothing left except some portions of the outer walls.

G.E. HIND

Hervé-Auguste-Etienne-Albans Faye

An astronomer, b. at Saint-Benoît-du-Sault (Indre, France), Oct., 1814; d. at Paris, 4 July, 1902. The son of a civil engineer he entered the Ecole Polytechnique in 1832 to prepare for a similar career. He left the school before the end of the second year and went to Holland. In 1836 he entered the Paris Observatory as a pupil. There, in 1843, he discovered the periodic comet bearing his name. This discovery gained for him the Prix Lalande. As early as 1847 he was elected member of the Academy of Sciences. From 1848 to 1854 he taught geodesy at the Ecole Polytechnique and then went to Nancy as rector of the academy and professor of astronomy. In 1873 he was called to succeed Delaunay in the chair of astronomy at the Ecole Polytechnique, where he worked and lectured until 1893. He held other official positions: inspector-general of secondary education (1857); member (1862) and later (1876) president of the Bureau des Longitudes; for a few weeks only, the minister of public instruction (1877); and member of the superior council of public instruction (1892). Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1843, he became officer in 1855 and commander in 1870. He was honoured with other decorations and by election to the membership of the principal European academies and societies.

Faye's fame rests both on his practical and on his theoretical work. He improved the methods of astronomical measurement, invented the zenithal collimator, suggested and applied photography and electricity to astronomy, and dealt with problems of physical astronomy, the shape of comets, the spots of the sun, meteors, etc. Credit is given by him as well as by his friends to the great influence of his wife, whom he met on his early trip to Holland. His religious nature finds corroboration in his knowledge of the wonders of the Universe. Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei, he quotes in "Sur l'origine du Monde" and goes on to say: "We run no risk of deceiving ourselves in considering it [Superior Intelligence] the author of all things, in refering to it those splendours of the heavens which aroused our thoughts: and finally we are ready to understand and accept the traditional formula: God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth". He contributed over 400 mémoires and notes to the "Comptes rendus, the Bulletin de la société astronomique", "Monthly Notices of the R.A.S." and "Astronomische Nachrichen". His larger works are: "Cours d'astronomie de l'école polytechnique" (Paris, 1883); Humbolt's "Cosmos", tr. by Faye and Galusky (Paris, 1848-59); "Cours d'astronomie nautique". (Paris, 1880); "Sur l'origine du monde" (Paris, 1885).

WILLIAM FOX

Fear

(IN CANON LAW.)

A mental disturbance caused by the perception of instant or future danger. Since fear, in greater or less degree, diminishes freedom of action, contracts entered into through fear may be judged invalid; similarly fear sometimes excuses from the application of the law in a particular case; it also excuses from the penalty attached to an act contrary to the law. The cause of fear is found in oneself or in a natural cause (intrinsic fear) or it is found in another person (extrinsic fear). Fear may be grave, such for instance as would influence a steadfast man, or it may be slight, such as would affect a person of weak will. In order that fear may be considered grave certain conditions are requisite: the fear must be grave in itself, and not merely in the estimation of the person fearing; it must be based on a reasonable foundation; the threats must be possible of execution; the execution of the threats must be inevitable. Fear, again, is either just or unjust, according to the justness or otherwise of the reasons which lead to the use of fear as a compelling force. Reverential fear is that which may exist between Superiors and their subjects. Grave fear diminishes willpower but cannot be said to totally take it away, except in some very exceptional cases. Slight fear (metus levis) is not considered even to diminish the will power, hence the legal expression "Foolish fear is not a just excuse".

The following cases may be taken as examples to illustrate the manner in which fear affects contracts, marriage, vows, etc., made under its influence. Grave fear excuses from the law and the censure attached thereto, if the law is ecclesiastical and if its non-observance will not militate against the public good, the Faith, or the authority of the Church; but if there is question of the natural law, fear excuses only from the censure (Commentators on Decretals, tit. "De his quae vi metusve causâ fiunt"; Schmalzgrueber tit. "De sent. excomm." n. 79). Fear that is grave extrinsic, unjust, and inflicted with a view to forcing consent is nullifies a marriage contract, but not if the fear be only intrinsic. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims to have acted through fear. Reverential fear, if it be also extrinsic, i.e., accompanied by blows, threats, or strong entreaty, and aimed at extorting consent, will also invalidate marriage. Qualified as just stated, fear is a diriment impediment of marriage when coupled with violence or threats (vis et metus). For further details see any manual of Canon Law e.g. Santi-Leitner, "Praelect. Jur. Can." (Ratisbon, 1905) IV, 56-59; Heiner "Kathol. Eherecht" (Muster, 1905), 82-46; also Ploch, "De Matr. vi ac metu contracto" (1853). For the history of this impediment see Esmein "Le mariage en droit canonique" (Paris, 1891), I, 309; II, 252; also Freisen, "Gesch. des kanon. Eherechts etc." (Tübingen, 1888).

Resignation of office extorted by unjust fear is generally considered to be valid, but may be rescinded unless the resignation has been confirmed by oath. On the other hand, if fear has been justly brought to bear upon a person, the resignation holds good (S. Cong. Conc. 24 April, 1880). Ordination received under grave and unjust fear is valid, but the obligations of the order are not contracted unless there is subsequent spontaneous acceptance of the obligation (Sanchez, De matrim.", VII, Disp. xxix, n. 5). In each cases if freedom is desired the Holy See should be petitioned for a dispensation (S. Cong. Conc. 13 Aug., 1870). The same holds good with regard to the vows of religious profession, and all other vows made under the influence of fear which is grave, extrinsic, unjust or reverential (see Vow). In English law, on proof of force and fear, the law restores the parties to the contract to the position in which they were before it was entered into, and will find the constraining party able to damages as reparation for any injury done to the party constrained. The maxim of the common law that "What otherwise would be good and just, if sought by force or fraud becomes bad and unjust."

See CONSENT; CONTRACT; VIOLENCE.

DAVID DUNFORD

Fear

(CONSIDERED FROM A MORAL STANDPOINT.)

Fear is an unsettlement of soul consequent upon the apprehension of some present or future danger. It is here viewed from the moral standpoint, that is, in so far as it is a factor to be reckoned with in pronouncing upon the freedom of human acts, as well as offering an adequate excuse for failing to comply with positive law, particularly if the law be of human origin. Lastly, it is here considered in so far as it impugns or leaves intact, in the court of conscience, and without regard to explicit enactment, the validity of certain deliberate engagements or contracts. The division of fear most commonly in vogue among theologians is that by which they distinguish serious fear (metus gravis) and trifling fear (fetus levis). The first is such as grows out of the discernment of some formidable impending peril: if this be really, and without qualification, of large proportions, then the fear is said to be absolutely great; otherwise it is only relatively so, as for instance, when account is taken of the greater susceptibility of certain classes of persons, such as old men, women, and children. Trifling fear is that which arises from being confronted with harm of inconsiderable dimensions, or, at any rate of whose happening there is only a slender likelihood.

It is customary also to note a fear in which the element of reverence is uppermost (metus reverensalis), which has its source in the desire not to offend one's parents and superiors. In itself this is reputed to be but trifling, although from circumstances it may easily rise to the dignity of a serious dread. A criterion rather uniformly employed by moralists, to determine what really and apart from subjective conditions is, a serious fear, is that contained in this assertion. It is the feeling which is calculated to influence a solidly balanced man (cadere in virum constantem). Another important classification is that of fear which comes from some source within the person, for example, that which is created by the knowledge that one has contracted a fatal disease fear which comes from without, or is produced namely, by some cause extrinsic to the terror-stricken subject. In the last named instance the cause may be either natural, such as probable volcanic eruptions, or recognizable in the attitude of some free agent. Finally it may be observed that one may have been submitted to the spell of fear either justly or unjustly, according as the one who provokes this passion remains within his rights, or exceeds them, in so doing. Actions done under stress of fear, unless of course it be so intense as to have dethroned reason, are accounted the legitimate progeny of the human will, or are, as the theologians say, simply voluntary, and therefore imputable. The reason is obvious, such acts lack neither adequate advertence nor sufficient consent, even though the latter be elicited only to avoid a greater evil or one conceived to be greater. In asmuch, however, as they are accompanied by a more or less vehement repugnance, they are said to be in a limited and partial sense involuntary.

The practical inference from this teaching is that an evil act having otherwise the bad eminence of grievous sin remains such, even though done out of serious fear. This is true when the transgression in question is against the natural law. In the case of obligations emerging from positive precepts, whether Divine or human, a serious and well-founded dread may often operate as an excuse, so that the failure to comply with the law under such circumstances is not regarded as sinful. The lawgiver is not presumed to have it in mind to impose an heroic act. This, however, does not hold good when the catering to such a fear would involve considerable damage to the common weal. Thus, for instance, a parish priest, in a parish visited by a pestilence, is bound by the law of residence to stay at his post, no matter what his apprehensions may be. It ought to be added here that attrition, or sorrow for sin even though it be the fruit of dread inspired by the thought of eternal punishment, is not in any sense involuntary. At least it must not be so, if it is to avail in the Sacrament of Penance for the justification of the sinner. The end aimed at by this imperfect sort of sorrow is precisely a change of will, and the giving up of sinful attachment is an unreservedly good and reasonable thing. Hence there is no room for that concomitant regret, or dislike, with which other things are done through fear.

It is, of course, needless to observe that in what has been said hitherto we have been referring always to what is done as a result of fear, not to what takes place merely in, or with fear. A vow taken out of fear produced by natural causes, such as a threatened shipwreck, is valid; but one extorted as the effect of fear unjustly applied by another is invalid; and this last is probably true even when the fear is trifling, if it be the sufficient motive for making the vow. The reason is that it is difficult to conceive such a promise being acceptable to Almighty God. So far as natural law is concerned, fear does not invalidate contracts. Nevertheless, when one of the parties has suffered duress at the hands of the other; the contract is voidable within the choosing of the one so injured. As to marriage, unless the fear prompting its solemnization is so extreme as to take away the use of reason, the common teaching is that such consent, having regard for the moment only to the natural law, would be binding. Its standing in ecclesiastical law is discussed in another article. It is worthy of note that mere insensibility to fear having its root whether in stolidity, or pride, or want of a proper rating of even temporal things, is not a valuable character asset. On the contrary, it represents a vicious temper of soul, and upon occasion its product may be notably sinful.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Ecclesiastical Feasts

(Lat. Festum; Gr. heorte).

Feast Days, or Holy Days, are days which are celebrated in commemoration of the sacred mysteries and events recorded in the history of our redemption, in memory of the Virgin Mother of Christ, or of His apostles, martyrs, and saints, by special services and rest from work. A feast not only commemorates an event or person, but also serves to excite the spiritual life by reminding us of the event it commemorates. At certain hours Jesus Christ invites us to His vineyard (Matt., xx, 1-15); He is born in our hearts at Christmas; on Good Friday we nail ourselves to the cross with Him; at Easter we rise from the tomb of sin; and at Pentecost we receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Every religion has its feasts, but none has such a rich and judiciously constructed system of festive seasons as the Catholic Church. The succession of these seasons form the ecclesiastical year, in which the feasts of Our Lord form the ground and framework, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints the ornamental tracery.

Prototypes and starting-points for the oldest ecclesiastical feasts are the Jewish solemnities of Easter and Pentecost. Together with the weekly Lord's Day, they remained the only universal Christian feasts down to the third century (Tertullian, "De Bapt." 19: Origen, "Contra Celsum", VIII, 22). Two feasts of Our Lord (Epiphany, Christmas) were added in the fourth century; then came the feasts of the Apostles and martyrs, in particular provinces; later on also those of some confessors (St. Martin, St. Gregory); in the sixth and seventh centuries feasts of the Blessed Virgin were added. After the triumph of Christianity, in the fourth and fifth centuries, the sessions of the civil courts were prohibited on all feasts, also the games in the circus and theatrical performances, in order to give an opportunity to all to hear Mass. In the course of centuries the ecclesiastical calendar expanded considerably, because in earlier ages every bishop had a right to establish new feasts. Later on a reduction of feasts took place, partly by regular ecclesiastical legislation, partly in consequence of revolutions in State and church. The Statutes of Bishop Sonnatius of Reims (see CALENDAR, III, 163), in 620, mention eleven feasts; the Statutes of St. Boniface ("Statuta", Mansi XII, 383), nineteen days, "in quibus sabbatizandum", i.e. days of rest. In England (ninth century) the feasts were confined to Christmas, Epiphany, three days of Easter, Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Gregory, and All Saints. Before the reign of King Edgar (959-75), three festivals of the B.V. Mary, and the days kept in honour of the Apostles were added; in the tenth year of Ethelred (989), the feast of St. Edward the Martyr (18 March), and in the reign of Canute, or Cnut (1017-35), that of St. Dunstan (19 May), were added. The feasts in the Statutes of Lanfrane (d. 1089) are quite numerous, and are divided into three classes (Migne, P.L., CL, 472-78)

The Decree of Gratian (about 1150) mentions forty-one feasts besides the diocesan patronal celebrations; the Decretals of Gregory IX (about 1233) mention forty-five public feasts and Holy Days, which means eighty-five days when no work could be done and ninety-five days when no court sessions could be held. In many provinces eight days after Easter, in some also the week after Pentecost (or at least four days), had the sabbath rest. From the thirteenth to the eighteenth century there were dioceses in which the Holy Days and Sundays amounted to over one hundred, not counting the feasts of particular monasteries and churches. In the Byzantine empire there were sixty-six entire Holy Days (Constitution of Manuel Comnenus, in 1166), exclusive of Sundays, and twenty-seven half Holy Days. In the fifteenth century, Gerson, Nicolas de Clémanges and others protested against the multiplication of feasts, as an oppression of the poor, and proximate occasions of excesses. The long needed reduction of feast days was made by Urban VIII (Universa per orbem, 13 Sept., 1642). There remained thirty-six feasts or eighty-five days free from labour. Pope Urban limited the right of the bishops to establish new Holy Days; this right is now not abrograted, but antiquated. A reduction for Spain by Benedict XIII (1727) retained only seventeen feasts; and on the nineteen abrogated Holy Days only the hearing of Mass was obligatory. This reduction was extended (1748) to Sicily. For Austria (1745) the number had been reduced to fifteen full Holy Days; but since the hearing of Mass on the abrogated feasts, or half Holy Days, the fast on the vigils of the Apostles were poorly observed, Clement XIV ordered that sixteen full feasts should be observed; he did away with the half Holy Days, which however continued to be observed in the rural districts (peasant Holy Days, Bauernfeiertage). The parish priests have to say Mass for the people on all the abrogated feasts. The same reduction was introduced into Bavaria in 1775, and into Spain in 1791; finally Pius VI extended this provision to other countries and provinces.

By the French revolution the ecclesiastical calendar had been radically abolished, and at the reorganization of the French Church, in 1806, only four feasts were retained: Christmas, the Ascension, the Assumption, and All Saints; the other feasts were transferred to Sunday. This reduction was valid also in Belgium and in Germany on the left bank of the Rhine. For the Catholics in England Pius VI (19 March, 1777) established the following lists of feasts: Easter and Pentecost two days each, Christmas, New Year's Day, Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Annunciation, Assumption, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. George, and All Saints. After the restoration of the hierarchy (1850), the Annunciation, St. George, and the Monday after Easter and Pentecost were abolished. Scotland keeps also the feast of St. Andrew, Ireland the feasts of St. Patrick and the Annunciation. In the United States, the number of feasts was not everywhere the same; the Council of Baltimore wanted only four feasts, but the decree was not approved by Rome; the third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), by a general law, retained six feasts: Christmas, New Year's Day, Ascension, Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and All Saints. Sts. Peter and Paul and Corpus Christi were transferred to the next following Sunday. In the city of Rome the following feasts are of double precept (i.e. hearing Mass, and rest from work): Christmas, New Year's Day, Epiphany, Purification, St. Joseph, Annunciation, Ascension, St. Philip Neri (26 May), Corpus Christi, Nativity of the B.V.M., All Saints, Conception of the B.V.M., St. John the Evangelist. The civil law in Italy acknowledges: Epiphany, Ascension, Sts. Peter and Paul, Assumption, Nativity, Conception, Christmas, and the patronal feasts.

The Greek Church at present observes the following Holy Days: Nativity of Mary, Exaltation of the Cross (14 Sept.), St. Demetrius (26 Oct.), St. Michael (8 Nov.), Entrance of Mary into the Temple (21 Nov.), St. Nicholas (6 Dec.), Conception of St. Anne (9 Dec.), Nativity of Christ, Commemoration of Mary (26 Dec.), St. Stephen (27 Dec.), Circumcision (1 Jan.), Epiphany, the Doctors St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. John Chrysostom (30 Jan.), the Meeting of Christ and Simeon (2 Febr.), Annunciation, St. George (23 Apr.), Nativity of St. John, Sts. Peter and Paul, St. Elias (20 July), Transfiguration (6 Aug.), Assumption, Beheading of St. John (29 Aug.), the Monday after Easter and Pentecost, Ascension of Christ, and the patronal feasts. The Russians have only nine ecclesiastical Holy Days which do not fall on a Sunday, viz.: Nativity, Epiphany, Ascension, Transfiguration, Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, Presentation of Mary (21 Nov.), and the Exaltation of the Cross. But they have fifty festivals (birthdays, etc.) of the imperial family, on which days not even a funeral can be held.

DIVISION OF FEASTS

Feasts are divided:

• According to external celebration (feriatio): festa fori, or feasts of precept, with double obligation, to rest from work and to hear Mass; festa chori, which are kept only in the liturgy, by the celebration of Mass, and the recitation of the Divine Office. Besides these there were, and still are, in some dioceses (e.g. in Holland), the Half Holy Days, on which the people after having heard Mass can do servile work (Candlemas, Nativity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception in the Diocese of Utrecht).
• According to extension: Universal feasts, celebrated everywhere, at least in the Latin Church; particular feasts, celebrated only by certain religious orders, countries, provinces, dioceses or towns. These latter are either prescribed by the general rubrics, like the patronal feasts, or are specially approved by the Apostolic See, and prescribed by bishops or synods, for particular countries or dioceses (festa pro aliquibus locis in the Breviary). The universal feasts are contained in the Roman Calendar.
• According to their position in the calendar: movable feasts, which always fall on a certain day of the week, depending on the date of Easter, or the position of the Sunday, e.g. Ascension of Christ (forty days after Easter), or the feast of the Holy Rosary, the first Sunday of October; immovable feasts, which are fixed to a certain date of the month, e.g. Christmas, 25 December. In the Armenian Church all the feasts of the year are moveable, except six: Epiphany, Purification (14 Febr.), Annunciation (7 April), Nativity (8 Sept.), Presentation (21 Nov.), and (8 Dec. Conception of Mary (Tondini, "Calendrier liturgique de la Nation Arménienne", Rome, 1906).
• According to the solemnity of the office or rite (see CALENDAR and DUPLEX). Since the thirteenth century there are three kinds of feasts: festum simplex, semiduplex, and duplex, all three regulated by the recitation of the Divine Office or Breviary. The simple feast commences with the chapter (capitulum) of First Vespers, and ends with None. It has three lessons and takes the psalms of Matins from the ferial office; the rest of the office is like the semidouble. The semidouble feast has two Vespers, nine lessons in Matins, and ends with Compline. The antiphons before the psalms are only intoned. In the Mass, the semidouble has always at least three "orationes" or prayers. On a double feast the antiphons are sung in their entirety, before and after the psalms. In Lauds and Vespers there are no suffragia of the saints, and the Mass has only one "oratio" (if there be no commemoration prescribed). The ordinary double feasts are called duplicia minora; occurring with feasts of a higher rank, they can be simplified, except the octave days of some feasts and the feasts of the Doctors of the Church, which are transferred. The feasts of a higher rank are the duplicia majora (introduced by Clement VIII), the duplicia secundae classis and the duplicia primae classis. Some of the latter two classes are kept with octaves. Before the reformation of the Breviary by Pius V (1566-72), the terms by which the solemnity of a feast could be known were, in many churches, very different from the terms we use now. We give a few examples from Grotefend, "Zeitrechnung", etc. (Hanover, 1891-98, II-III): Chur: "Festum summum, plenum officium trium lectionum, commemoratio." Havelberg: "Festum summum, semisummum, secundum, tertium, novem majus, novem minus, compulsation 3 lect., antiphona." Halle: "Festum praepositi, apostolicum, dominicale, 9 lect., compulsation 3 lect., antiphona." Breslau: "Festum Triplex, duplex, 9 lectionum, 3 lect., commemoratio." Carthusians: "Festum Candelarum, capituli, 12 lect., missa, commemoratio." Lund: "Fest Praelatorum, canonicorum, vicariorum, duplex, simplex, 9 lect., 3 lect., memoria."

Some of the religious orders which have their own breviary, did not adopt the terms now used in the Roman Breviary. For example, the Cistercians have the following terminology: "Festum sermonis majus, sermonis minus, duarum missarum majus, 2 miss. minus, 12 lectionum, 3 lect., commemoratio." The Dominicans: "Totum duplex, duplex, simplex, 3 lect., memoria." The Carmelites: "Duplex majus I. classis solemnis, dupl, maj. I. cl. duplex majus 2. classis, duplex minus I, classis, duplex minus 2, classis, semiduplex, simplex, simplicissimum."

Among the feasts of the same rite there is a difference in dignity. There are

• primary feasts which commemorate the principal mysteries of our religion, or celebrate the death of a saint;
• secondary feasts, the object of which is a particular feature of a mystery, e.g. the feast of the Crown of Thorns, of the relics of a saint or of some miracle worked by him, e.g. the feast of the translation of St. Stephen, the Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The list of primary and secondary feasts has been determined by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (22 Aug., 1893), and is found in the introduction to the Roman Breviary.
• Within the two classes mentioned the feasts of Christ take the first place, especially those with privileged vigils and octaves (Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and Corpus Christi); then follow the feasts of the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Angels, St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, the Apostles and Evangelists, and the other saints.

DUCHESNE, Origines du Culte Chrétien (Paris, 1889); tr. McCLURE (London, 1904); KELLNER, Heortology (tr. London, 1909), PROBST, Liturgie des vierten Jahrh. (Münster, 1893); BÄUMER, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg, 1895); BENTRIUM, Denkwürdigen (Mainz, 1829); LINGARD, Antiquities of the Anglo Saxon Church (London, 1858); MAXIMILIAN, PRINCE OF SAXONY, Praelect. de Liturgiis Orientalibus (Freiburg, 1908); Kirchliches Handlexicom (Münster 1907); Kirchenlexicon(Freiburg, 1886), IV; NILLES, Kalendarium, manuele, etc. (Innsbruck,1897); MORISOT, Instructions sur les fêtes de l'année (Paris, 1908).

F.G. HOLWECK

Febronianism

The politico-ecclesiastical system outlined by Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Auxiliary Bishop of Trier, under the pseudonym Justinus Febronius, in his work entitled "Justini Febronii Juris consulti de Stata Ecclesiæ et legitimâ potestate Romani Pontificis Liber singularis ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione christianos compositus" (Bullioni apud Guillelmum Evrardi, 1763; in reality the work was published by Esslinger at Frankfort-on-the-Main). Taking as a basis the Gallican principles which he had imbibed from the canonist Van Espen while pursuing his studies in Louvain, Hontheim advanced along the same lines, in spite of many inconsistencies, to a radicalism far outstripping traditional Gallicanism. He develops in this work a theory of ecclesiastical organization founded on a denial of the monarchical constitution of the Church. The ostensible purpose was to facilitate the reconciliation of the Protestant bodies with the Church by diminishing the power of the Holy See.

According to Febronius (cap. i), the power of the keys was entrusted by Christ to the whole body of the Church, which holds it principaliter et radicaliter, but exercises it through her prelates, to whom only the administration of this power is committed. Among these the pope comes first, though even he is subordinate to the Church as a whole. The Divine institution of the primacy in the church is acknowledged (cap. ii), but Febronius holds that its connexion with the Roman See does not rest on the authority of Christ, but on that of Peter and the Church, so that the Church has the power to attach it to another see. The power of the pope, therefore, should be confined to those essential rights inherent in the primacy which were exercised by the Holy See during the first eight centuries. The pope is the centre with which the individual Churches must be united. He must be kept informed of what is taking place everywhere throughout the Church, that he may exercise the care demanded by his office for the preservation of unity. It is his duty to enforce the observance of the canons in the whole Church; he has the authority to promulgate laws in the name of the Church, and to depute legates to exercise his authority as primate. His power, as head of the whole Church, however, is of an administrative and unifying character, rather than a power of jurisdiction. But since the ninth century, chiefly through the influence of the False Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, the constitution of the Church has undergone a complete transformation, in that the papal authority has been extended beyond proper bounds (cap. iii). By a violation of justice, questions which at one time were left to the decision of provincial synods and metropolitans gradually came to be reserved to the Holy See (cap. iv), as, for instance, the condemnation of heresies, the confirmation of episcopal elections, the naming of coadjutors with the right of succession, the transfer and removal of bishops, the establishment of new dioceses, and the erection of metropolitan and primatial sees. The pope, whose infallibility is expressly denied (cap. v), cannot, on his own authority, without a council or the assent of the entire episcopate, give forth any decisions on matters of faith of universal obligation. Likewise in matters of discipline, he can issue no decrees affecting the whole body of the faithful; the decrees of a general council have binding power only after their acceptance by the individual churches. Laws once promulgated cannot be altered at the pope's will or pleasure. It is also denied that the pope, by the nature and authority of the primacy, can receive appeals from the whole Church.

According to Febronius, the final court of appeal in the Church is the ecumenical council (cap. vi), the fights of which exclude the pretended monarchical constitution of the Church. The pope is subordinate to the general council; he has neither the exclusive authority to summon one, nor the right to preside at its sessions, and the conciliar decrees do not need his ratification. Ecumenical councils are of absolute necessity, as even the assent of a majority of bishops to a papal decree, if given by the individuals, outside a council, does not constitute a final, irrevocable decision. Appeal from the pope to a general council is justified by the superiority of the council over the pope. According to the Divine institution of the episcopate (cap. vii), all bishops have equal rights; they do not receive their power of jurisdiction from the Holy See. It is not within the province of the pope to exercise ordinary episcopal functions in dioceses other than that of Rome. The papal reservations regarding the granting of benefices, annates, and the exemption of religious orders are thus in conflict with the primitive law of the Church, and must be abolished. Having shown, as he believes, that the existing ecclesiastical law with reference to papal power is a distortion of the original constitution of the Church, due chiefly to the False Decretals, Febronius demands that the primitive discipline, as outlined by him, be everywhere restored (cap. viii). He then suggests as means for bringing about this reformation (cap. ix), that the people shall be properly enlightened on this subject, that a general council with full freedom be held, that national synods be convened, but especially that Catholic rulers take concerted action, with the cooperation and advice of the bishops, that secular princes avail themselves of the Regium Placet to resist decrees, that obedience be openly refused to a legitimate extent, and finally that secular authority be appealed to through the Appellatio ab abusu. The last measures reveal the real trend of Febronian principles; Febronius, while ostensibly contending for a larger independence and greater authority for the bishops, seeks only to render the Churches of the different countries less dependent on the Holy See, in order to facilitate the establishment of national Churches in these states, and reduce the bishops to a condition in which they would be merely servile creatures of the civil power. Wherever an attempt was made to put his ideas into execution, it proceeded along these lines.

The book was formally condemned, 27 February, 1764, by Clement XIII. By a Brief of 21 May, 1764, the pope required the German episcopate to suppress the work. Ten prelates, among them the Elector of Trier, complied. Meanwhile no steps had been taken against the author personally, who was well known in Rome. Despite the ban of the Church, the book, harmonizing as it did with the spirit of the times, had a tremendous success. A second edition, revised and enlarged, was issued as early as 1765; it was reprinted at Venice and Zurich, and translations appeared in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. In the three later volumes, which Hontheim issued as supplementary to the original work, and numbered II to IV (Vol. II, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1770; Vol. III, 1772; Vol. IV, Parts 1 and 2, 1773-74), he defended it, under the name of Febronius and various other pseudonyms, against a series of attacks. Later he published an abridgment under the title: "Justinus Febronius abbreviatus et emendatus" (Cologne and Frankfort, 1777). In addition to the "Judicium academicum" of the University of Cologne (1765), refutations appeared from a large number of Catholic authors, the most important being: Ballerini, "De vi ac ratione primatus Romanorum Pontificum et de ipsorum infallibilitate in definiendis controversiis fidei" (Verona, 1766); Idem, "De potestate ecclesiasticâ Summorum Pontifleum et Conciliorum generalium liber, una cum vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiæ contra opus Just. Febronii (Verona, 1768; Augsburg, 1770; new ed. of both works, Münster in W., 1845, 1847); Zaccaria, "Antifebronio, ossia apologia polemicostorica del primato del Papa, contra la dannata opera di Giust. Febronio" (2 vols., Pesaro, 1767; 2nd ed., 4 vols., Cesena, 1768-70; tr. German, Reichenberger, Augsburg, 1768); Idem, "Antifebronius vindicatus" (4 vols., Cesena, 1771-2); Idem, "In tertium Justini Febronii tomum animadversiones Romano-catholicæ" (Rome, 1774); Mamachi, "Epistolæ ad Just. Febronium de ratione regendæ christianæ reipublicæ deque legitimâ Romani Pontificis potestate" (3 vols., Rome, 1776-78). There were, besides, refutations written from the Protestant standpoint, to repudiate the idea that a diminution of the papal power was all that was necessary to bring the Protestants back into union with the Church, for instance Karl Friedrich Bahrdt, "Dissertatio de eo, an fieri possit, ut sublato Pontificio imperio reconcilientur Dissidentes in religione Christiani" (Leipzig, 1763), and Johann Friedrich Bahrdt, "Do Romanâ Ecclesiâ irreconciliabili" (Leipzig, 1767); Karl Gottl. Hofmann, "Programma continens examen regulæ exegeticæ ex Vincentio Lerinensi in Febronio repetitæ" (Wittenberg, 1768).

The first measures against the author were taken by Pius VI, who urged Clemens Wenzeslaus, Elector of Trier, to prevail on Hontheim to recall the work. Only after prolonged exertions, and after a retractation, couched in general terms, had been adjudged unsatisfactory in Rome, the elector forwarded to Rome Hontheim's emended recantation (15 November, 1778). This was communicated to the cardinals in consistory by Pius VI on Christmas Day. That this retractation was not sincere on Hontheim's part is evident from his subsequent movements. That he had by no means relinguished his ideas appears from his "Justini Febronii Jcti. Commentarius in suam Retractationem Pio VI. Pont. Max. Kalendis Nov. anni 1778 submissam" (Frankfort, 1781; German ed., Augsburg, 1781), written for the purpose of justifying his position before the public. Meanwhile; notwithstanding the prohibition, the "Febronius" had produced its pernicious effects, which were not checked by the retractation. The ideas advanced in the work, being in thorough accord with the absolutistic tendencies of civil rulers, were eagerly accepted by the Catholic courts and governments of France, the Austrian Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Venice, Austria, and Tuscany; and they received further development at the hands of court theologians and canonists who favoured the scheme of a national Church. Among the advocates of the theory of Febronianism in Germany, mention should be made of the Trier professor, Franz Anton Haubs, "Themata ex historiâ ecclesiasticâ de hierarchiâ sacrâ primorum V sæculorum" (Trier, 1786); "Systema primævum de potestate episcopali ejusque applicatio ad episcopalia quædam jura in specie punctationibus I. II. et IV. congressus Emsani exposita" (Trier, 1788); and Wilhelm Joseph Castello, "Dissertatio historica de variis causis, queis accidentalis Romani Pontificis potestas successive ampliata fuit" (Trier, 1788). It was the Austrian canonists, however, who contributed most towards the compilation of a new law code regulating the relations of Church and State, which was reduced to practice under Joseph II. Especially noteworthy as being conceived in this spirit were the textbooks on canon law prescribed for the Austrian universities, and compiled by Paul Joseph von Riegger, "Institutiones juris ecclesiastici" (4 vols., Vienna, 1768-72; frequently reprinted), and Pehem, "Prælectiones in jus ecclesiasticum universum", also, in a more pronounced way, the work of Johann Valentin Eybel, "Introductia in jus ecclesiasticum Catholicorum" (4 vols., Vienna, 1777; placed on the Index, 1784).

The first attempt to give Febronian principles a practical application was made in Germany at the Coblenz Conference of 1769, where the three ecclesiastical Electors of Mains, Cologne, and Trier, through their delegates, and under the directions of Hontheim, compiled a list of thirty grievances against the Roman See, in consonance with the principles of the "Febronius" (Gravamina trium Archiepiscoporum Electorum, Moguntinensis, Trevirensis et Coloniensis contra Curiam Apostolicam anno 1769 ad Cæsarem delata; printed in Le Bret, "Magazin zum Gebrauch der Staaten- und Kirchengeschichte", Pt. VIII, Ulm, 1783, pp. 1-21). More significant was the Ems Congress of 1786, at which the three ecclesiastical electors and the Prince-Bishop of Salzburg, in imitation of the Coblenz Congress, and in conformity with the basic principles of the "Febronius", made a fresh attempt to readjust the relations of the German Church with Rome, with a view to securing for the former a greater measure of independence; they also had their representatives draw up the Ems Punctation in twenty-three articles; they achieved, however, no practical results. An attempt was made to realize the principles of the "Febronius" on a large scale in Austria, where under Joseph II a national Church was established according to the plan outlined. Efforts in the same direction were made by Joseph's brother Leopold in his Grand-Duchy of Tuscany. The resolutions adopted at the Synod of Pistoia, under Bishop Scipio Ricci, along these lines, were repudiated by the majority of the bishops of the country.

MEJER, Febronius, Weihbischof Johann Nicolaus von Hontheim und sein Widerruf (Tübingen, 1880, 2nd ad., 1885), anti-Roman; KÜNTZIGER, Fébronius et le Fébronianisme in Mémoires couronnés et autres mémoires publiés par l'Académie Royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, Vol. XLIV (Brussels, 1891). also anti-Roman; STÜMPER. Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen des Febronius, inaugural dissertation presented to the faculty of jurisprudence and political economy of the University of Würzburg (Aschaffenburg, 1908), Catholic; RÖSCH, Das Kirchenrecht im Zeitalter der Aufklärung, I: Der Febronianismus in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenrecht, LXXXIII (Mainz, 1903), 446-82, 620-52. Also WALCH, Neueste Religions-Geschichte, Pt. I (Lemgo, 1771), 145-98; Pt. VI (1777), 175-208; Pt. VII (1779), 193-240, 453-64; Pt. VIII (1781), 529-42; Briefwechsel zwischen weiland ihrer Durchlaucht dam Herrn Kurfürsten von Trier, Clemens Wenzeslaus und dem Herrn Weihbischof Nik. von Hontheim über das Buch, Just. Febronii de statu Ecclesiæ (Frankfort, 1813); PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1848), III, 365-74; MARX, Gesch. des Erzstifts Trier (Trier, 1864), V, 90-129; BRÜCK, Die rationalistischen Bestrebungen im katholischen Deutschland (Mainz, 1865); da SCHULTE, Die Gesch. der Quellen und Lit. des canonischen Rechts (Stuttgart, 1880), Vol. III, Pt. 1, 193-205; BELLESHEIM in Historisch-politische Blätter, LXXXVI (1880), 529-44; KRAUS in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, s. v. Hontheim; BRÜCK in Kirchenlex., s. v. Hontheim; ANON., Netler, Hontheim und Clemens Wenzeslaus (Die Anfänge der febronianischen Häresie) in Katholik, I (1891), 537-57; II, 19-39; ZILLICH, Febronius in Hallesche Abhandlungen zur neueren Geschichte, XLIV (Halle, 1906).

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT.

John de Feckenham

Last Abbot of Westminster, and confessor of the Faith; b. in Feckenham Forest, Worcestershire, in 1515(?), of poor parents named Howman; d. at Wisbech Castle, 16 Oct., 1585. He became a Benedictine monk at Evesham, and studied at Gloucester Hall, Oxford (B. D., 11 June, 1539), returned to Evesham to teach junior monks till the dissolution, 27 Jan., 1540, when he received a pension of 15 marks. Rector of Solihull, Worcestershire (1544?-1554), he became known as an orator and controversialist. He was domestic chaplain to Bishop Bell of Worcester till 1543, and then to Bonner of London till 1549. He was sent to the Tower by Cranmer for defending the Faith, but in 1551 was "borrowed out of prison" to hold public disputations with the new men, e. g. with Jewel and Hooper. Again relegated to the Tower, he was released by Queen Mary, 5 Sept., 1553, and was much employed as a preacher in London; he was advanced to benefices, and in March, 1554, made dean of St. Paul's. He showed great mildness to the heretics, many of whom he converted, and saved others from the stake. He prepared Lady Jane Grey for death, though he could not convince her of her errors, as he did Sir John Cheke, the king's tutor. Feckenham interceded for Elizabeth after Wyatt's rebellion, obtaining her life and subsequent release. He took the degree of D. D. at Oxford, May, 1556, and on 7 Sept., 1556, was appointed abbot of the royal Abbey of Westminster, restored to the order by the queen. The Benedictines took possession on 21 November (since known as dies memorabilis), and the abbot was installed on 29 November, beginning his rule over a community of about twenty- eight, gathered from the dissolved abbeys. He successfully defended in Parliament, 11 Feb., 1557, the threatened privileges of sanctuary, and restored the shrine of the Confessor in his abbey church.

Elizabeth at her accession offered (November, 1558) to preserve the monastery if he and his monks would accept the new religion, but Feckenham steadily refused, bravely and eloquently defending the old Faith in Parliament and denouncing the sacrilegious innovations of the Anglicans. He gave sanctuary to Bishop Bonner, and quietly went on planting trees while awaiting the expulsion, which took place 12 July, 1559. He generously resigned a large part of the money due him to the dean who succeeded him. Nevertheless, in May, 1560, he was sent to the Tower "for railing against the changes that had been made". Three years later he was given into the custody of Horne, the intruded Bishop of Winchester, but in 1564 he was sent back to the Tower, his episcopal jailer having failed to pervert him. Feckenham himself said that he preferred the prison to the pseudo-bishop's palace. In 1571 he prepared his fellow-prisoner, Blessed John Storey, for death, and a little later was sent to the Marshalsea. In the Tower he and his fellow-confessors had been "haled by the arms to Church in violent measure, against our wills, there to hear a sermon, not of persuading us but of railing upon us." He was released on bail, 17 July, 1574, after fourteen years' confinement, and lived in Holborn, where he devoted himself to works of charity. He encouraged boys in manly sports on Sundays, preferring that they should practise archery rather than attend the heretical services. But falling ill, he was permitted to go to Bath, where in 1576 he built a hospice for poor patients and did much good. But his zeal for the Faith excited fresh rancour, and in 1577 he was committed to the custody of Cox, Bishop of Ely, who was requested to bring him to conformity. Feckenham's so-called "Confession" (British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., No. 30, fol. 199) shows how egregiously Cox failed, and in 1580 he petitioned the council to remove the abbot, who was accordingly sent to Wisbech Castle, a dismal prison belonging to the Bishops of Ely, which he shared with Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and other confessors. Here he died a holy death, fortified by the Sacred Viaticum, and was buried in Wisbech Church. He was worn out by an imprisonment of twenty- three years for conscience' sake; a striking example of Elizabeth's ingratitude. Protestant writers unite in praising his virtues, especially his kindness of heart, gentleness, and charity to the poor. Even Burnet calls him "a charitable and generous man". His best-known work is against Herne, "The Declaration of such Scruples and Stays of Conscience touching the Oath of Supremacy", etc. He also wrote "Caveat Emptor", a caution against buying abbey lands, and a commentary on the Psalms, but these are lost.

     Most complete life in Taunton, English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1897); Bradley in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v., with good bibliography; Wood, Athenæ Oxon., II, 222; Weldon, Chronological Notes on English Congregation O. S. B. (Stanbrook Abbey, 1883); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II; Gasquet, Last Abbot of Glastonbury and other Essays (London, 1908), s. v. Feckenham at Bath; Stapleton (vere Harpsfield), Counterblast to Mr. Hornes vayne blaste against Mr. Feckenham (London, 1567); Reyner, Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Angliâ (Douai, 1626); State Papers, Elizabeth, Domestic, XXII, XXXVI, CXIV, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXLIII, etc.; Dixon, History of the Church of England (London, 1891), IV, V.

Bede Camm

Johann Michael Feder

A German theologian, b. 25 May, 1753, at Oellingen in Bavaria; d. 26 July, 1824, at Würzburg. He studied in the episcopal seminary of Würzburg from 1772-1777; in the latter year he was ordained priest and promoted to the licentiate in theology. For several years Feder was chaplain of the Julius hospital; in 1785 he was appointed extraordinary professor of theology and Oriental languages at the University of Würzburg; was created a Doctor of Divinity in 1786; director of the university library 1791, ordinary professor of theology and censor of theological publications, 1795. After the reorganization of the University of Würzburg, 1803-4, he was appointed chief librarian, resigning the professorship of theology in 1805. Shortly after his removal from office as librarian, November, 1811, he suffered a stroke of apoplexy, from which he never fully recovered. Feder was a prolific writer, editor, and translator, but was imbued with the liberal views of his time. His most meritorious work is a revision of Dr. Heinrich Braun's German translation of the Bible (1803), 2 vols. This revision served as the basis for Dr. Allioli's well-known translation. He also translated the writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (1786); the sermons of St. Chrysostom on Matthew and John, in conjunction with the unfortunate Eulogius Sehneider (1786-88); Theodoret's ten discourses on Divine Providence (1788); Gerard's lectures on pastoral duties (1803); de Bausset's life of Fénelon (1800-12), 3 vols., and the same author's life of Bossuet (1820); Fabert's "Meditations" (1786). He was editor of the "Magazin zur Beförderung des Schulwesens" (1791-97), 3 vols., of the "Prakt.-theol. Magazin für katholische Geistliche" (1798-1800), and of the "Würzburger Gelehrten Anzeigen" (1788-92). He also wrote several volumes of sermons.

ALEXIUS HOFFMANN

Rudolph William Basil Feilding

The eighth Earl of Denbigh, and ninth Earl of Desmond, b. 9 April, 1823; d. 1892. He was educated at Eton College and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took the degree of Master of Arts. He was received into the Church in 1850, and took an active part in many Catholic works of charity under Cardinal Wiseman. As Viscount Feilding he was appointed honorary treasurer, jointly with Viscount Campden and Mr. Archibald J. Dunn, of the Peter's Pence Association. He was a man of great courage and independence of character, qualities needed in the middle of the nineteenth century when the English Protestant mind was much inflamed in consequence of the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England. As a thanksgiving for his conversion, he built the Franciscan monastery at Pentasaph, North Wales.

ARCHIBALD J. DUNN

Andreas Benedict Feilmoser

A theologian and Biblical scholar, b. 8 April, 1777, at Hopfgarten, Tyrol; d. at Tübingen, 20 July, 1831, studied at Salzburg from 1789 to 1794, took a two years' course in philosophy at the University of Innsbruck (1794-96), and entered the Benedictine Order at Fiecht, Tyrol, in September, 1796. At this abbey he studied the Oriental languages under Dom Georg Maurer, a monk of St. George's Abbey, Villingen. For his theological studies he was sent to Villingen, where he again heard Dom Maurer and Dom Gottfried Lumper, both eminent scholars. Returning to Fiecht in 1800, he taught Biblical exegesis and was ordained priest in 1801; late in the same year he was appointed master of novices, in 1802 professor of Christian ethics and in 1803 of ecclesiastical history. A number of theses which he published in 1803 aroused the suspicions of the ecclesiastical authorities of the Diocese of Brixen. The Abbot of Fiecht was sharply rebuked for permitting Feilmoser to teach unsound doctrine. In 1804 appeared Feilmoser's "Animadversiones in historiam ecclesiasticam", which did not meet the approval of the diocesan authorities, who threatened, in case Feilmoser did not desist from advancing dangerous opinions, to institute proceedings against the abbot. To Feilmoser's request for a specification of the objectionable passages in his writings no reply was made, but the entire matter was reported to the emperor at Vienna. An investigation instituted by order of the emperor resulted favourably for Feilmoser. He was, nevertheless, removed from the office of master of novices and in 1806 was made assistant in the parish of Achenthal. By the Treaty of Presburg (26 Dec.,1805) Tyrol was cut off from Austria and became a part of Bavaria. The new Government, in November, 1806, appointed him professor of Oriental languages and of introduction to the Old Testament at the University of Innsbruck. The monastery of Fiecht having been suppressed in 1807, he left the order. At lnnsbruck he received the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1808 and was appointed to the chair of New Testament exegesis. During the Tyrolese insurrection, August, 1809, he, with a number of other professors, was taken prisoner and carried to Pusterthal by order of Andreas Hofer. In 1810 he returned to Innsbruck, in 1811 he was made professor of catechetics, in 1812 of Latin and Greek philology, and in 1817 was reappointed professor of New-Testament exegesis in the face of much opposition. About this time the old charges against him were revived, and in 1818 he was bitterly attacked in an anonymous work published at Augsburg. He was denied the opportunity of publicly defending himself, inasmuch as the imperial censor at Vienna, on 17 July, 1819, decided that since the anonymous work was published, a foreign country, it was under Austrian censure and must be regarded as non-existent. On 25 April, 1820, he was formally appointed a professor at the University of Tübingen, where he continued to teach New -Testament exegesis until his death.

He wrote: "Sätze aus der christlichen Sittenlehre für die öffentliche Prüfung in dem Benedictinerstifte zu Fiecht" (Innsbruck, 1803); "Sätze aus der Einleitung in die Bücher des alten Bundes und den hebraischen Alterhumern" (Innsbruch, 1803); "Animaversiones in historiam ecclesiasticam" (Innsbruck, 1803); "Sätze aus der Einleitung in die Bücher des neuen Bundes und der bibli. Hermeneutik" (Innsbruck, 1804); "Einleitung in die Bücher des des neuen Bundes" (Innsbruck, 1810); "Auszug des hebr. Sprachlehre nach Jahn" (Innsburck 1812); "Die Verketzerrungssucht" (Rottweil, 1820). His principal work, "Einleitung in die Bucher des neuen Bundes", published in a revised edition (Tübingen, 1830), is inaccurate and was praised far beyond its due. He also contributed papers and criticisms to the "Annalen der osterreichischen Litteratur und Kunst" and the "Theologische Quartal-schrift" of Tübingen. His exegetical writings are influenced by the rationalistic spirit of his day. He denied the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum and maintained that the Books of Job, Jonas, Tobias, and Judith are merely didactic poems.

ALEXIUS HOFFMANN

Johann Ignaz von Felbiger

A German educational reformer, pedagogical writer, and canon regular of the Order of St. Augustine, b. 6 January, 1724, at Gross-Glogau in Silesia; d. 17 May, 1788, at Presburg in Hungary. He was the son of a postmaster, who had been ennobled by Emperor Charles VI. The death of his parents constrained him, after studying theology at the University of Breslau, to accept (1744) the position of teacher in a private family. In 1746 he joined the Order of Canons Regular of St. Augustine at Sagan in Silesia, was ordained a priest in 1748, and ten years later became abbot of the monastery of Sagan. Noting the sad condition of the local Catholic schools, he strove to remedy the evil by publishing his first school-ordinance in 1761. During the private journey to Berlin, in 1762, he was favourably impressed with Hecker's Realschule and Hähn's method of instructing by initials and tables (Literal- or Tabellen-methode), and became an enthusiastic propagator of this method. A school-ordinance for the dependencies of the monastery of Sagan was issued in 1763, teachers' college was established, and Felbiger's school reforms soon attracted the attention of Catholics and Protestants alike. He was supported by the Silesian minister von Schlabrendorff, and at the latter's request, after a second journey to Berlin he elaborated general school-ordinance for the Catholic elementary schools in Silesia (1765). Three graded catechisms, the joint work of the prior and the abbot of Sagan, appeared in 1766 under the title, "Silesian Catechism", and enjoyed a wide circulation. The death of von Schlabrendorff in 1769 marked the end of the Silesian government's educational efforts. Felbiger's suggetions were heeded, however, by King Frederick II in regulations issued (1774) for Silesian higher schools.

At the request of the empress, Maria Theresa, he repaired to Vienna in 1774, and was appointed General Commissioner of Education for all the German lands of her dominions. The same year he published general school-ordinance, and in 1775 his most important pedagogical production: "Methodenbuch für Lehrer der deutschen Schulen". His school-reform was copied by Bavaria and other German lands and was not without influence on Russia. Considerable opposition, aroused by Felbiger's arbitrariness, developed in Austria against his plan of founding special schools for the neglected instruction of soldiers. Maria Theresa, however, always remained his faithful protectress. Put his strictly religious principles education displeased Joseph II, who depraved him his position, assigned him to his provostship at Presburg, and advised him to look after educational intests in Hungary (1782). The chief peculiarity of Felbiger's too mechanical method was the use of tables containing the initials of the words which expressed the lesson to be imparted. Other features were the substitution of class-instruction for individual instruction and the practice of questioning the pupils. He aimed at raising the social standing, financial condition, and professional qualification of the teaching body, at giving a friendly character to the mutual relations between teacher and pupil. For a list of his 78 publications, which are mainly of a pedagogical character, see Panholzer's "Methodenbuch" (46-66).

N.A. WEBER

Felician Sisters, 0.S.F.

Founded 21 November, 1855, at Warsaw, Poland, by Mother Mary Angela, under the direction of Father Honorat, O.F.M. Cap. On their suppression, in 1864, by the Russian Government they transferred the mother-house to Cracow, Austria. In the province of Cracow there are forty-four houses of this congregation, and in the United States, where the first foundation was made in 1874, there are two provinces, 820 choir and lay sisters, 100 novices, 168 postulants, in charge of 87 schools with 36,700 pupils, 5 orphanages with 416 inmates, 2 homes for the aged, an emigrant home, working girls' home, and a day nursery.

MOTHER MARY JEROME

Felicissimus

A deacon of Carthage who, in the middle of the third century, headed a short-lived but dangerous schism, to which undue doctrinal importance has been given by a certain class of writers, Neander, Ritschl, Harnack, and others, who see in it "a presbyterial reaction against episcopal autocracy". Of the chief figure in the revolt, Felicissimus, not much can be said. The movement of which he was afterwards the leader originated in the opposition of five presbyters of the church in Carthage to St. Cyprian's election as bishop of that see. One of these presbyters, Novatus, selected Felicissimus as deacon of his church in the district called Mons, and because of the importance of the office of deacon in the African Church, Felicissimus became the leader of the malcontents. The opposition of this faction, however, led to no open rupture until after the outbreak of the Decian persecution in 250, when St. Cyprian was compelled to flee from the city. His absence created a situation favourable to his adversaries, who took advantage of a division already existing in regard to the methods to be followed in dealing with those who had apostatized (lapsi) during persecution and who afterwards sought to be readmitted to Christian fellowship. It was easy under the circumstances to arouse much hostility to Cyprian, because he had followed an extremely rigorous policy in dealing with those lapsi. The crisis was reached when St. Cyprian sent from his place of hiding a commission consisting of two bishops and two priests to distribute alms to those who had been ruined during the persecution. Felicissimus, regarding the activities of these men as an encroachment on the prerogatives of his office, attempted to frustrate their mission. This was reported to St. Cyprian, who at once excommunicate him. Felicissimus immediately gathered around him all those who were dissatisfied with the bishop's treatment of the lapsi and proclaimed an open revolt. The situation was still further complicated by the fact that the thirty years' peace preceding the Decian persecution had caused much laxity in the Church, and that on the first outbreak of hostilities multitudes of Christians had openly apostatized or resorted to the expedient of purchasing certificates from the venal officials, attesting their compliance with the emperor's edict. Besides this the custom of readmitting apostates to Christian fellowship, if they could show tickets from confessors or martyrs in their behalf, had resulted in widespread scandals.

While St. Cyprian was in exile he did not succeed in checking the revolt even though he wisely refrained from excommunicating those who differed from in regard to the treatment of the lapsi. After his return to Carthage (251) he convoked a synod of bishops, priests ansd deacons, in which the sentence of excommunication against Felicissimus and the heads of faction was reaffirmed, and in which definite rules were laid down regarding the manner of readmitting the lapsi. The sentence against Felicissimus and his followers did not deter them from appearing before another council, which was held in Carthage the following year, and demanding that the case be reopend. Their demand was refused, and they sought to profit by the division in the Roman Church which had arisen from similar causes, except that in this case the charge of laxity was levelled against the orthodox party. This proceding and the fact that the Council of Carthage had decided with so much moderation in regard to the lapsi, modifying as it did the rigoristic policy of Cyprian by a judicious compromise, soon detached from Felicissimus all his followers, and the schism disappeared.

PATRICK J. HEALY

St. Felicitas

MARTYR.

The earliest list of the Roman feasts of martyrs, known as the "Depositio Martyrum" and dating from the time of Pope Liberius, i.e. about the middle of the fourth century (Ruinart, Acta sincera, Ratisbon, p. 631), mentions seven martyrs whose feast was kept on 10 July. Their remains had been deposited in four different catacombs, viz. in three cemeteries on the Via Salaria and in one on the Via Appia. Two of the martyrs, Felix and Philip, reposed in the catacomb of Priscilla; Martial, Vitalis and Alexander, in the Coemeterium Jordanorum; Silanus (or Silvanus) in the catacomb of Maximus, and Januarius in that of Prætextatus. To the name of Silanus is added the statement that his body was stolen by the Novatians (hunc Silanum martyrem Novatiani furati sunt). In the Acts of these martyrs, that certainly existed in the sixth century, since Gregory the Great refers to them in his "Homiliæ super Evangelia" (Lib. I, hom. iii, in P.L., LXXVI, 1087), it is stated that all seven were sons of Felicitas, a noble Roman lady. According to these Acts Felicitas and her seven sons were imprisoned because of their Christian Faith, at the instigation of pagan priests, during the reign of Emperor Antoninus. Before the prefect Publius they adhered firmly to their religion, and were delivered over to four judges, who condemned them to various modes of death. The division of the martyrs among four judges corresponds to the four places of their burial. St. Felicitas herself was buried in the catacomb of Maximus on the Via Salaria, beside Silanus.

These Acts were regarded as genuine by Ruinart (op. cit., 72-74), and even distinguished modern archæologists have considered them, though not in their present form corresponding entirely to the original, yet in substance based on genuine contemporary records. Recent investigations of Führer, however (see below), have shown this opinion to be hardly tenable. The earliest recension of these Acts, edited by Ruinart, does not antedate the sixth century, and appears to be based not on a Roman, but on a Greek original. Moreover, apart from the present form of the Acts, various details have been called in question. Thus, if Felicitas were really the mother of the seven martyrs honoured on 10 July, it is strange that her name does not appear in the well-known fourth-century Roman calendar. Her feast is first mentioned in the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum", but on a different day (23 Nov.). It is, however, historically certain that she, as well as the seven martyrs called her sons in the Acts suffered for the Christian Faith. From a very early date her feast was solemnly celebrated in the Roman Church on 23 November, for on that day Gregory the Great delivered a homily in the basilica that rose above her tomb. Her body then rested in the catacomb of Maximus; in that cemetery on the Via Salaria all Roman itineraries, or guides to the burial-places of martyrs, locate her burial-place, specifying that her tomb was in a church above this catacomb (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 176-77), and that the body of her son Silanus was also there. The crypt where Felicitas was laid to rest was later enlarged into a subterranean chapel, and was rediscovered in 1885. A seventh-century fresco is yet visible on the rear wall of this chapel, representing in a group Felicitas and her seven sons, and overhead the figure of Christ bestowing upon them the eternal crown.

Certain historical references to St. Felicitas and her sons antedate the aforesaid Acts, e.g. a fifth-century sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus (Sermo cxxxiv, in P.L., LII, 565) and a metrical epitaph either written by Pope Damasus (d. 384) or composed shortly after his time and suggested by his poem in praise of the martyr:

[Learn how meritorious it is to die for the King (Christ). This woman feared not the sword, but perished with her sons. She confessed Christ and merited an eternal renown.--Ihm, Damasi Epigrammata (Leipzig, 1895), p. 45.] We possess, therefore, confirmation for an ancient Roman tradition, independent of the Acts, to the effect that the Felicitas who reposed in the catacomb of Maximus, and whose feast the Roman Church commemorated 23 Nov., suffered martyrdom with her sons; it does not record, however, any details concerning these sons. It may be recalled that the tomb of St. Silanus, one of the seven martyrs (10 July), adjoined that of St. Felicitas and was likewise honoured; it is quite possible, therefore, that tradition soon identified the sons of St. Felicitas with the seven martyrs, and that this formed the basis for the extant Acts. The tomb of St. Januarius in the catacomb of Prætextatus belongs to the end of the second century, to which period, therefore, the martyrdoms must belong, probably under Marcus Aurelius. If St. Felicitas did not suffer martyrdom on the same occasion we have no means of determining the time of her death. In an ancient Roman edifice near the ruins of the Baths of Titus there stood in early medieval times a chapel in honour of St. Felicitas. A faded painting in this chapel represents her with her sons just as in the above-mentioned fresco in her crypt. Her feast is celebrated 23 Nov.

RUINART, Acta sincera martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 72-74; Acta SS., July, III, 5-18; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, I, 429-30; ALLARD, Histoire des persécutions (2nd ed., Paris, 1892), I, 345- 68; AUBÉ, Histoire des persécutions de l'Eglise jusqu'=85 la fin des Antonins (Paris, 1845), 345 sq., 439 sqq.; DOULCET, Essai sur les rapports de l'Eglise chrétienne avec l'Etat romain pendant les trois premiers siècles (Paris, 1883), 187-217; DUFOURCQ, Gesta Martyrum romains (Paris, 1900), I, 223-24; DE ROSSI, Bullettino di archeol. crist. (1884-85), 149-84; FöHRER, Ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Felicitasfrage (Freising, 1890); IDEM, Zur Felicitasfrage (Leipzig, 1894); KöNSTLE, Hagiographische Studien über die Passio Felicitatis cum VII filiis (Paderborn, 1894); MARUCCHI, La catacombe romane (Rome, 1903), 388-400.

J.P. KIRSCH

Sts. Felicitas and Perpetua

Martyrs, suffered at Carthage, 7 March 203, together with three companions, Revocatus, Saturus, and Saturninus. The details of the martyrdom of these five confessors in the North African Church have reached us through a genuine, contemporary description, one of the most affecting accounts of the glorious warfare of Christian martyrdom in ancient times. By a rescript of Septimus Severus (193-211) all imperial subjects were forbidden under severe penalties to become Christians. In consequence of this decree, five catechumens at Carthage were seized and cast into prison, viz. Vibia Perpetua, a young married lady of noble birth; the slave Felicitas, and her fellow-slave Revocatus, also Saturninus and Secundulus. Soon one Saturus, who deliberately declared himself a Christian before the judge, was also incarcerated. Perpetua's father was a pagan; her mother, however, and two brothers were Christians, one being still a catechumen; a third brother, the child Dinocrates, had died a pagan.

After their arrest, and before they were led away to prison, the five catechumens were baptized. The sufferings of the prison life, the attempts of Perpetua's father to induce her to apostatize, the vicissitudes of the martyrs before their execution, the visions of Saturus and Perpetua in their dungeons, were all faithfully committed to writing by the last two. Shortly after the death of the martyrs a zealous Christian added to this document an account of their execution. The darkness of their prison and the oppressive atmosphere seemed frightful to Perpetua, whose terror was increased by anxiety for her young child. Two deacons succeeded, by sufficiently bribing the jailer, in gaining admittance to the imprisoned Christians and alleviated somewhat their sufferings. Perpetua's mother also, and her brother, yet a catechumen, visited them. Her mother brought in her arms to Perpetua her little son, whom she was permitted to nurse and retain in prison with her. A vision, in which she saw herself ascending a ladder leading to green meadows, where a flock of sheep was browsing, assured her of her approaching martyrdom.

A few days later Perpetua's father, hearing a rumour that the trial of the imprisoned Christians would soon take place, again visited their dungeon and besought her by everything dear to her not to put this disgrace on her name; but Perpetua remained steadfast to her Faith. The next day the trial of the six confessors took place, before the Procurator Hilarianus. All six resolutely confessed their Christian Faith. Perpetua's father, carrying her child in his arms, approached her again and attempted, for the last time, to induce her to apostatize; the procurator also remonstrated with her but in vain. She refused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the emperor. The procurator thereupon had the father removed by force, on which occasion he was struck with a whip. The Christians were then condemned to be torn to pieces by wild beasts, for which they gave thanks to God. In a vision Perpetua saw her brother Dinocrates, who had did at the early age of seven, at first seeming to be sorrowful and in pain, but shortly thereafter happy and healthy. Another apparition, in which she saw herself fighting with a savage Ethiopian, whom she conquered, made it clear to her that she would not have to do battle with wild beasts but with the Devil. Saturus, who also wrote down his visions, saw himself and Perpetua transported by four angels, towards the East to a beautiful garden, where they met four other North African Christians who had suffered martyrdom during the same persecution, viz. Jocundus, Saturninus, Artaius, and Quintus. He also saw in this vision Bishop Optatus of Carthage and the priest Aspasius, who prayed the martyrs to arrange a reconciliation between them. In the meanwhile the birthday festival of the Emperor Geta approached, on which occasion the condemned Christians were to fight with wild beasts in the military games; they were therefore transferred to the prison in the camp. The jailer Pudens had learnt to respect the confessors, and he permitted other Christians to visit them. Perpetua's father was also admitted and made another fruitless attempt to pervert her.

Secundulus, one of the confessors, died in prison. Felicitas, who at the time of her incarceration was with child (in the eighth month), was apprehensive that she would not be permitted to suffer martyrdom at the same time as the others, since the law forbade the execution of pregnant women. Happily, two days before the games she gave birth to a daughter, who was adopted by a Christian woman. On 7 March, the five confessors were led into the amphitheatre. At the demand of the pagan mob they were first scourged; then a boar, a bear, and a leopard, were set at the men, and a wild cow at the women. Wounded by the wild animals, they gave each other the kiss of peace and were then put to the sword. Their bodies were interred at Carthage. Their feast day was solemnly commemorated even outside Africa. Thus under 7 March the names of Felicitas and Perpetua are entered in the Philocalian calendar, i.e. the calendar of martyrs venerated publicly in the fourth century at Rome. A magnificent basilica was afterwards erected over their tomb, the Basilica Majorum; that the tomb was indeed in this basilica has lately been proved by Pere Delattre, who discovered there an ancient inscription bearing the names of the martyrs.

The feast of these saints is still celebrated on 7 March. The Latin description of their martyrdom was discovered by Holstenius and published by Poussines. Chapters iii-x contain the narrative and the visions of Perpetua; chapters xi-ciii the vision of Saturus; chapters i, ii and xiv-xxi were written by an eyewitness soon after the death of the martyrs. In 1890 Rendel Harris discovered a similar narrative written in Greek, which he published in collaboration with Seth K. Gifford (London, 1890). Several historians maintain that this Greek text is the original, others that both the Greek and the Latin texts are contemporary; but there is no doubt that the Latin text is the original and that the Greek is merely a translation. That Tertullian is the author of these Acts is an unproved assertion. The statement that these martyrs were all or in part Montanists also lacks proof; at least there is no intimations of it in the Acts.

HOLSTENIUS, Passio SS. MM. Perpetuae et Felicitatis, ed. POSSINUS (Rome, 1663); RUINART, Acta sincera martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859), 137 sqq.; Acta SS., March, I, 633-38; HARRIS and GIFFORD, The Acts of Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas (London, 1890); ROBINSON, The Passion of S. perpetua in Texts and Studies, I (Cambridge, 1891),2; FRANCHI DE'CAVALIERI, La Passio SS. Perpetuæ et Felicitatis in Röm. Quartalschr., supplement V (Rome, 1896); Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, ed. BOLLANDISTS, II, 964; Analecta Bollandiana (1892), 100-02; 369-72; ORSI, Dissertatio apologetica pro SS. Perpetuae, Felicitatis et sociorum martyrum orthodoxiâ (Florence, 1728); PILLET, Les martyrs d'Afrique, Histoire de Ste Perpetua et de ses compagnons (Paris, 1885); AUBÉ, Les actes des SS. Felicite, Perpétue et de luers compagnons in Les chretiens dans l'Empire Romain (Paris, 1881), 509-25; NEUMANN, Der ramische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche, I (Leipzig, 1890), 170-76, 299-300; ALLARD, Histoire des persecutions, II (Paris, 1886), 96 sqq.; MONCEAUX, Histoire litteraire de l'Afrique chrétienne, I (Paris, 1901), 7 0-96; DELATTRE, La Basilica Maiorum, tombeau des SS. Perpetue et Félicité in Comples-rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1907), 516-31.

J.P. KIRSCH

Pope St. Felix I

Date of birth unknown; d. 274. Early in 269 he succeeded Saint Dionysius as head of the Roman Church. About this time there arrived at Rome, directed to Pope Dionysius, the report of the Synod of Antioch which in that very year had deposed the local bishop, Paul of Samosata, for his heretical teachings concerning the doctrine of the Trinity (see Antioch). A letter, probably sent by Felix to the East in response to the synodal report, containing an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, was at a later date interpolated in the interest of his sect by a follower of Apollinaris (see Apollinarianism). This spurious document was submitted to the Council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, "Coll. conc.", IV, 1188; cf. Harnack, "Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", I, 659 sqq.; Bardenhewer, "Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur", II, 582 sq.). The fragment preserved in the Acts of the council lays special emphasis on the unity and identity of the Son of God and the Son of Man in Christ. The same fragment gives Pope Felix as a martyr; but this detail, which occurs again in the biography of the pope in the "Liber Pontificalis" (Ed. Duchesne, I, 58), is unsupported by any authentic earlier evidence and is manifestly due to a confusion of names. According to the notice in the "Liber Pontificalis", Felix erected a basilica on the Via Aurelia; the same source also adds that he was buried there ("Hic fecit basilicam in Via Aurelia, ubi et sepultus est"). The latter detail is evidently an error, for the fourth century Roman calendar of feasts says that Pope Felix was interred in the Catacomb of St. Callistus on the Via Appia ("III Kal. Januarii, Felicis in Callisti", it reads in the "Depositio episcoporum"). The statement of the "Liber Pontificalis" concerning the pope's martyrdom results obviously from a confusion with a Roman martyr of the same name buried on the Via Aurelia, and over whose grave a church was built. In the Roman "Feriale" or calendar of feasts, referred to above, the name of Felix occurs in the list of Roman bishops (Depositio episcoporum), and not in that of the martyrs. The notice in the "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes to this pope a decree that Masses should be celebrated on the tombs of martyrs ("Hic constituit supra memorias martyrum missas celebrare"). The author of this entry was evidently alluding to the custom of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice privately, at the altars near or over the tombs of the martyrs in the crypts of the catacombs (missa ad corpus), while the solemn celebration of the Sacred Mysteries always took place in the basilicas built over the catacombs. This practice, still in force at the end of the fourth century (Prudentius, "Peristephanon", XI, vv. 171 sqq.), dates apparently from the period when the great cemeterial basilicas were built in Rome, and owes its origin to the solemn commemoration services of martyrs, held at their tombs on the anniversary of their burial, as early as the third century. Felix probably issued no such decree, but the compiler of the "Liber Pontificalis" attributed it to him because he made no departure from the custom in force in his time. According to the above-mentioned detail of the "Depositio episcoporum", Felix was interred in the catacomb of St. Callistus, 30 December. In the present Roman Martyrology his name occurs 30 May, the date given in the "Liber Pontificalis" as that of his death (III Kal. Jun.); it is probably an error which could easily occur through a transcriber writing Jun. for Jan.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, I, introd. cxxv; text, 158, with the notes; De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, II, 98-104; Acta SS., May, VII, 236-37; Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche (Bonn, 1881), I, 365-69; Allard, Histoire des persécutions, III, 243 sqq.

J.P. KIRSH

Felix II

Pope (more properly Antipope), 355-358; d. 22 Nov., 365.

In 355 Pope Liberius was banished to Beraea in Thrace by the Emperor Constantius because he upheld tenaciously the Nicene definition of faith and refused to condemn St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The Roman clergy pledged itself in solemn conclave not to acknowledge any other Bishop of Rome while Liberius was alive. ("Marcellini et Fausti Libellus precum", no.1 : "Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos" in "Collectio Avellana", ed. Gunter; Hieronymus, "Chronicon", ad an. Abr. 2365). The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with the bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church; on the latter's arrival, Acacius of Caesarea succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled, and to be consecrated by Acacius and two other Arian bishops. The majority of the Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of his consecration but the laity would have nothing to do with him and remained true to the banished but lawful pope.

When Constantius visited Rome in May, 357, the people demanded the recall of their rightful bishop Liberius who, in fact, returned soon after signing the third formula of Sirmium. The bishops, assembled in that city of Lower Pannonia, wrote to Felix and the Roman clergy advising there to receive Liberius in all charity and to put aside their dissensions; it was added that L.iberius and Felix should together govern the Church of Rome. The people received their legitimate pope with great enthusiasm, but a great commotion rose against Felix, who was finally driven from the city. Soon after, he attempted, with the help of his adherents to occupy the Basilica Julii (Santa Maria in Trastevere), but was finally banished in perpetuity by unanimous vote of the Senate and the people. He retired to the neighbouring Porto, where he lived quietly till his death. Liberius permitted the members of the Roman clergy, including the adherents of Felix, to retain their positions. Later legend confound the relative positions of Felix and Liberius. In the apocryphal "Acta Felicis" and "Acta Liberii", as well as in the "Liber pontificalis", Felix was portrayed as a saint and confessor of the true Faith. This distortion of the true facts originated most probably through confusion of this Felix with another Felix, a Roman martyr of an earler date.

According to the "Liber Pontificalis", which may be registering here a reliable tradition, Felix built a church on the via Aurelia. It is well known that on this road was buried a Roman martyr, Felix; hence it seems not improbable that apropos of both there arose a confusion (see FELIX I) through which the real story of the antipope was lost and he obtained in local Roman history the status of a saint and a confessor. As such he appears in the Roman Martyrology on 29 July.

J.P. KIRSCH

Pope St. Felix III

(Reigned 483-492).

Born of a Roman senatorial family and said to have been an ancestor of Saint Gregory the Great. Nothing certain is known of Felix, till he succeeded St. Simplicitus in the Chair of Peter (483). At that time the Church was still in the midst of her long conflict with the Eutychian heresy. In the preceding year, the Emperor Zeno, at the suggestion of Acacius, the perfidious Patriarch of Constantinoble, had issued an edict known as the Hereticon or Act of Union, in which he declared that no symbol of faith, other than that of Nice, with the additions of 381, should be received. The edict was intended as a bond of reconciliation between Catholics and Eutychians, but it caused greater conflicts than ever, and split the Church of the East into three or four parties. As the Catholics everywhere spurned the edict, the emperor had driven the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria from their sees. Peter the Tanner, a notorious heretic, had again intruded himself into the See of Antioch, and Peter Mongus, who was to be the real source of trouble during the pontificate of Felix, had seized that of Alexandria. In his first synod Felix excommunicated Peter the Tanner, who was likewise condemned by Acacius in a synod of Constantinoble. In 484, Felix also excommunicated Peter Mongus -- an act, which brought about a schism between East and West, that was not healed for thirty-five years. This Peter, being a time-server and of a crafty deposition, ingratiated himself with the emperor and Acacius by subscribing to the Henoticon, and was thereupon, to the displeasure of many of the bishops, admitted to communion by Acacius.

Felix, having convened a synod, sent legates to the emperor and Acacius, with the request that they should expel Peter Mongus from Alexandria and that Acacius himself should come to Rome to explain his conduct. The legates were detained and imprisoned; then urged by threats and promises, they held communion with the heretics by distinctly uttering the name of Peter in the readings of the sacred diptychs. When their treason was made known at Rome by Simeon, one of the "Acaemeti" monks, Felix convened a synod of seventy-seven bishops in the Lateran Basilica, in which Acacius as well as the papal legates were also excommunicated. Supported by the emperor Acacius disregarded the excommunication, removed the pope's name from the sacred diptychs, and remained in the see till his death, which took place one or two years later. His successor Phravitas, sent messengers to Fe!ix, assuring him that he would not hold communion with Peter, but, the pope learning that this was a deception, the schism continued. Peter, having died in the meantime Ethymus who succeeded Phravitas, also sought communion with Rome, but the pope refused, as Euthymius would not remove the names of his two predecessors from the sacred diptychs. The schism, known as the Acacian Schism was not finally healed till 518 in the reign of Justinian. In Africa the Arian Vandals, Genseric and his son Huneric had been persecuting the Church for more than 50 years and had driven many Catholics into exile. When peace was restored, numbers of those who through fear had fallen into heresy and had been rebaptized by the Arians desired to return to the Church. On being repulsed by those who had remained firm, they appealed to Felix who convened a synod in 487, and sent a letter to the bishops of Africa, expounding the conditions under which they were to be received back. Felix died in 492, having reigned eight years, eleven months and twenty-three days.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

Pope St. Felix IV

(Reigned 526-530).

On 18 May, 526, Pope John I (q.v.) died in prison at Ravenna, a victim of the angry suspicions of Theodoric, the Arian king of the Goths. When, through the powerful influence of this ruler, the cardinal-priest, Felix of Samnium, son of Castorius, was brought forward in Rome as John's successor, the clergy and laity yielded to the wish of the Gothic king and chose Felix pope. He was consecrated Bishop of Rome 12 July, 526, and took advantage of the favor he enjoyed at the court of Theodoric to further the interests of the Roman Church, discharging the duties of his office in a most worthy manner. On 30 August, 526, Theodoric died, and, his grandson Athalaric being a minor, the government was conducted by Athalaric's mother Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric and favorably disposed towards the Catholics. To the new ruler the Roman clergy addressed a complaint on the usurpation of their privileges by the civil power. A royal edict, drawn up by Cassiodorus in terms of the deepest respect for the papal authority, confirmed the ancient custom that every civil or criminal charge of a layman against a cleric should be submitted to the pope, or to an ecclesiastical court appointed by him. A fine of ten pounds of gold was imposed as a punishment for the violation of this order, and the money thus obtained was to be distributed amongst the poor by the pope (Cassiodorus, "Variae", VIII, n. 24, ed. Mommsen, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auctores antiquiss.", XII, 255) The pope received as a gift from Amalasuntha two ancient edifices in the Roman Forem, the Temple of Romulus, son of the Emperor Maxentius, and the adjoining Templum sacroe urbis, the Roman land registry office. The pope converted the buildings into the Church of SS. Cosmas and Damian, which still exists and in the apse of which is preserved the large and magnificent mosaic executed by order of Felix, the figure of the pope, however, being a later restoration (see COSMAS AND DAMIAN). Felix also took part in the so-called Semipelagian conflict in Southern Gaul concerning the nature and efficiency of grace. He sent to the bishops of those parts a ser5ies of "Capitula", regarding grace and free will, compiled from Scripture and the Fathers. These capitula were published as canons at the Synod of Orange (529). In addition Felix approved the work of Caesarius of Arles against Faustus of Riez on grace and free will (De gratia et libero arbitrio). Rendered anxious by the political dissensions of the Romans, many of whom stood for the interests of Byzantium, while others supported Gothic Rule, Felix IV, when he fell seriously ill in the year 530, wished to ensure the peace of the Roman Church by naming his successor. Having given over to Archdeacon Boniface his pallium, he made it known publicly that he had chosen Boniface to succeed him, and that he had apprised the court of Ravenna of his action ("Neues Archiv", XI, 1886, 367; Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 282, note 4). Felix IV died soon afterwards, but in the papal election which followed his wishes were disregarded (see BONIFACE II). The feast of Felix IV is celebrated on 30 January. The day of his death is uncertain, but it was probably towards the end of September, 530.

J.P. KIRSCH

Felix V

Regnal name of Amadeus of Savoy, Antipope (1440-1449).

Born 4 December, 1383, died at Ripaille, 7 January, 1451. The schismatic Council of Basle, having declared the rightful pope, Eugene IV, deposed, proceeded immediately with the election of an antipope. Wishing to secure additional influence and increased financial support, they turned their attention towards the rich and powerful prince, Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy. Amadeus had exercised over his dependencies a mild and equitable sway, and had evinced a great zeal for the interests of the Church, especially in connection with the Western Schism regarding the papal succession, brought to a close by the Council of Constance. Emperor Sigismund had shown his appreciation of this ruler's services by raising, in 1416, the former counts of Savoy to the status of a duchy, and in 1422 conferred on Arnadeus the county of Geneva. On the death of his wife, Maria of Burgundy, Duke Amadeus resolved to lead henceforth a life of contemplation, without however entirely resigning the government of his territories. He appointed his son Ludwig regent of the duchy, and retired to Ripaille on the Lake of Geneva, where in company with five knights whom he had formed into an Order of St. Maurice, he led a semi-monastic life in accordance with a rule drawn up by himself.

Amadeus had been in close relations with the schismatic council of Basle; and was elected pope, 30 October, 1439, by the electoral college of that council, including one cardinal (d'Allamand of Aries), eleven bishops, seven abbots, five theologians, and nine canonists. After long negotiations with a deputation from the council, Amadeus acquiesced in the election, 5 Feb., 1440, completely renouncing at the same time all further participation in the government of his duchy. Ambition and a certain fantastic turn of character induced him to take this step. He took the name of Felix V, and was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the Cardinal d'Allamand, 24 July, 1440. Eugene IV had already excommunicated him, 23 March, at the council of Florence. Until 1442, the famous Aeneas Sylvinus Piccolomini, later Pius II, was the antipope's secretary. This renewal of the schism ruined any success of Basle assembly, just closed at Constance. Subsequently, Amadeus took up his residence in Savoy and Switzerland; his efforts to surround himself with a curia met with little success; many of those whom he named cardinals declined the dignity. He found general recognition only in Savoy and Switzerland, but his claims were also recognized by the Dukes of Austria, Tyrol, and Bayern-München, the Count-Palatine of Simmern, the Teutonic Order, some orders in Germany and some universities hitherto adherents of Basle. He was soon embroiled in a quarrel with the Council of Basle concerning his rights and the distribution of revenues. The rightful pope, Eugene IV, and his successor Nicolas V (1447), who were universally recognized from the first in Spain and Poland, found their claims even more widely admitted in France and Germany. In 1442, Felix left Basle, and on 16 May, 1443, occurred the last session of the Baste assembly. Felix, who had for the sake of its revenue assumed the administration of the Diocese of Geneva, clung for six years more to his usurped dignity but finally submtted (1449) to Nicolas V, received the title of Cardinal of St. Sabina, and was appointed permanent Apostolic vicar-general for all the states of the House of Savoy and for several dioceses (Basle, Strasburg, Chur, etc.). Thus ended the last papal schism.

J.P. KIRSCH

Célestin Joseph Félix

French Jesuit, b. at Neuville-sur-l' Escaut (Nord), 28 June 1810; d. at Lille, 7 July, 1891. He began his studies under the Brothers of Christian Doctrine, going later to the preparatory seminary at Cambrai, where he completed his secondary studies. In 1833 he was named professor of rhetoric, received minor orders and the diaconate, and in 1837 entered the Society of Jesus. He began his noviceship at Tronchiennes in Belgium, continued it at Saint-Acheul, and ended it at Brugelettes, where he studied philosophy and the sciences. Having completed his theological studies at Louvain, he was ordained in 1842 and returned to Brugelettes to teach rhetoric and philosophy. His earliest Lenten discourses, preached at Ath, and especially one on true patriotism, soon won him a brilliant reputations for eloquence.

Called to Amiens in 1850, he introduced the teaching of rhetoric at the College de la Providence and preaching during Advent and Lent at the cathedral. His oratorical qualities becoming more and more evident, he was called to Paris. He first preached at St. Thomas d'Aquin in 1851, and in 1852 preached Lenten sermons at Saint-Germain-des-Pres, and those of Advent at Saint-Sulpice. It was then that Mgr. Sibour named him to succeed the Dominican, Father Lacordaire, and the Jesuit, Father de Ravignan in the pulpit of Notre-Dame (1853 to 1870). He became one of its brilliant orators. The conferences of the first three years have not been published in full. In 1856 Père Félix began the subject which he made the master-work of his life: "Progrès par le Christianisme". This formed the matter of a series of Lenten conferences which are preserved for us in fifteen voIumes, and which have lost none of their reality. True progress in all its forms, whether of the individual or of the family, in science, art, morals, or government, is herein treated with great doctrinal exactness and breadth of view. The practical conclusions of these conferences Père Félix summed up every year in his preaching of the Easter retreat, which had been inaugurated by Père de Ravignan. This was the side of his ministry which lay nearest his heart. While he was in Paris, and especially during his stay at Nancy (1867-1883), and at Lille (1883-1891), the illustrious Jesuit spoke in nearly all the great cathedrals of France and Belgium. In 1881 he even went to Copenhagen to conduct the Advent exercises, and there he held a celebrated conference on authority. Félix founded the Society of St. Michael for the distribution of good books and employed the leisure moments of his last years in the composition of several works and in the revision of his "Retraites a Notre-Dame", which he published in six volumes.

The eloquence of Père Félix was charaeterised by clearness, vigorous logic, unction, and pathos, even in his reasoning. He lacked imagination and the enthusiasm of Lacordaire, but he was more skilled in dialectic and surer in doctrine. His diction was richer than that of de Ravignan, and while he was less didactic than Monsabré he was more original. A list of his works is given by Sommervozgel.

LOUIS LALANDE

Sts. Felix and Adauctus

Martyrs at Rome, 303, under Diocletian and Maximian. The Acts, first published in Ado's Martyrology, relate as follows: Felix, a Roman priest, and brother of another priest, also named Felix, being ordered to offer sacrifice to the gods, was brought by the prefect Dracus to the temples of Serapis, Mercury, and Diana. But at the prayer of the saint the idols fell shattered to the ground. He was then led to execution. On the way an unknown person joined him, professed himself a Christian, and also received the crown of martyrdom. The Christians gave him the name Adauctus (added). These Acts are considered a legendary embellishment of a misunderstood inscription by Pope Damasus. A Dracus cannot be found among the prefects of Rome; the other Felix of the legend is St. Felix of Nola; and Felix of Monte Pincio is the same Felix honoured on the Garden Hill. The brother is imaginary (Anal. Boll., XVI, 19-29). Their veneration, however, is very old; they are commemorated in the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great and in the ancient martyrologies. Their church in Rome, built over their graves, in the cemetery of Commodilla, on the Via Ostiensis, near the basilica of St. Paul, and restored by Leo III, was discovered about three hundred years ago and again unearthed in 1905 (Civiltà Catt., 1905, II, 608). Leo IV, about 850, is said to have given their relics to Irmengard, wife of Lothair I; she placed them in the abbey of canonesses at Eschau in Alsace. They were brought to the church of St. Stephen in Vienna in 1361. The heads are claimed by Anjou and Cologne. According to the "Chronicle of Andechs" (Donauwörth, 1877, p. 69), Henry, the last count, received the relics from Honorius III and brought them to the Abbey of Andechs. Their feast is kept on 30 August.

Stokes in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Felix (217); Acta SS., Aug., VI, 545; Stadler, Heiligenlexicon, s.v.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

St. Felix of Cantalice

A Capuchin friar, b. at Cantalice, on the north-western border of the Abruzzi; d. at Rome, 18 May, 1587. His feast is celebrated among the Franciscans and in certain Italian dioceses on 18 May. He is usually represented in art as holding in his arms the Infant Jesus, because of a vision he once had, when the Blessed Virgin appeared to him and placed the Divine Child in his arms.

His parents were peasant folk, and very early he was set to tend sheep. When nine years of age he was hired out to a farmer at Cotta Ducale with whom he remained for over twenty years, first as a shepherd-boy and afterwards as a farm labourer. But from his earliest years Felix evinced signs of great holiness, spending all his leisure time in prayer, either in the harsh or in some solitary place. A friend of his having read to him the lives ot the Fathers of the Desert, Felix conceived a great desire for the eremitical life, but at the same time feared to live otherwise than under the obedience of a superior. After seeking light in prayer, he determined to ask admittance amongst the Capuchins. At first the friars hesitated to accept him, but he eventually received the habit, in 1543, at Anticoli in the Roman Province. It was not without the severest temptations that he persevered and made his profession. These temptations were so severe as injure his bodily health. In 1547 he was sent to Rome and appointed questor for the community. Here he remained for the rest of his life, and in fulfilling his lowly office became a veritable apostle of Rome.

The influence which he speedily gained with the Roman people is an evidence of the inherent power of personal holiness over the consciences of men. He had no learning he could not even read; yet learned theologians came to consult him upon the.science of the spiritual life and the Scriptures. Whenever he appeared in the streets of Rome vicious persons grew abased and withdrew from his sight. Sometimes Felix would stop them and earnestly exhort them to live a better life; especially did he endeavour to restrain young men. But judges and dignitaries also at times incurred his rebuke, he was no respecter of persons when it was a matter of preventing sin. On one occasion, during a Carnival, he and St. Philip Neri organized a procession with their crucifix; then came the Capuchin friars; last came Felix leading Fra Lupo, a well-known Capuchin preacher, by a rope round his neck, to represent Our Lord led to judgment by his executioners. Arrived in the middle of the revels, the procession halted and Fra Lupo preached to the people. The Carnival, with its open vice, was broken up for that year.

But Felix's special apostolate was amongst the children of the city, with whom his childlike simplicity made him a special favourite. His method with these was to gather them together in bands and, forming circle, set them to sing canticles of his own composing, by which he taught them the beauty of a good life and the ugliness of sin. These canticles became popular and frequently, when on his rounds in quest of alms, Felix would be invited into the houses of his benefactors and asked to sing. He would seize the opportunity to bring home some spiritual truth in extemporized verse. During the famine of 1580 the directors of the city's charities asked his superiors to place Felix at their disposal to collect alms for the starving, and he was untiring in his quest.

St. Philip Neri had a deep affection for the Capuchin lay brother, whom he once proclaimed the greatest saint then living in the Church. When St. Charles Borromeo sought St. Philip's aid in drawing up the constitutions of his Oblates, St. Philip took him to St. Felix as the most competent adviser in such matters. But through all, Felix kept his wonderful humility and simplicity. He was accustomed to style himself "Ass of the Capuchins". Acclaimed a Saint by the people of Rome, immediately after his death, he was beatified by Urban VIII in 1625, and canonized by Clement Xl in 1712. His body rests under an altar dedicated to him in the church of the Immaculate Conception to Rome.

FATHER CUTHBERT

St. Felix of Nola

Born at Nola, near Naples, and lived in the third century. After his father's death he distributed almost all his goods amongst the poor, and was ordained priest by Maximum Bishop of Nola. In the year 250, when the Decian persecution broke out, Maximus was forced to flee. The persecutors seized on Felix and he was cruelly scourged, loaded with chains, and cast into prison. One night an angel appeared to him and bade him go to help Maximus. His chains fell off, the doors opened, and the saint was enabled to bring relief to the bishop, who was then speechless from cold and hunger. On the persecutors making a second attempt to secure Felix, his escape was miraculously effected by a spider weaving her web over the opening of a hole into which he had just crept. Thus deceived, they sought their prey elsewhere. The persecution ceased the following year, and Felix, who had lain hidden in a dry well for six months, returned to his duties. On the death of Maximus he was earnestly desired as bishop, but he persuaded the people to choose another, his senior in the priesthood. The remnant of his estate having been confiscated in the persecution, he refused to take it back, and for his subsistence rented three acres of land, which he tilled with his own hands. Whatever remained over he gave to the poor, and if he had two coats at any time he invariably gave them the better. He lived to a ripe old age and died 14 January (on which day he is commemorated), but the year of his death is uncertain. Five churches were built in his honour, outside Nola, where his remains are kept, but some relics are also at Rome and Benevento. St. Paulinus, who acted as porter to one of these churches, testifies to numerous pilgrimages made in honour of Felix. The poems and letters of Paulinus on Felix are the source from which St. Gregory of Tours, Venerable Bede, and the priest Marcellus have drawn their biographies (see PAULINUS OF NOLA). There is another Felix of Nola, bishop and martyr under a Prefect Martianus. He is considered by some to be the same as the above.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

St. Felix of Valois

Born in 1127; d. at Cerfroi, 4 November, 1212. He is commemorated 20 November. He was surnamed Valois because, according to some, he was a member of the royal branch of Valois in France, according to others, because he was a native of the province of Valois. At an early age he renounced his possessions and retired to a dense forest in the Diocese of Meaux, where he gave himself to prayer and contemplation. He was joined in his retreat by St. John of Matha, who proposed to him the project of founding an order for the redemption of captives. After fervent prayer, Felix in company with John set out for Rome and arrived there in the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III. They had letters of recommendation from the Bishop of Paris, and the new pope received them with the utmost kindness and lodged them in his palace. The project of founding the order was considered in several solemn conclaves of cardinals and prelates, and the pope after fervent prayer decided that these holy men were inspired by God, and raised up for the good of the Church. He solemnly confirmed their order, which he named the Order of the Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives. The pope commissioned the Bishop of Paris and the Abbot of St. Victor to draw up for the institute a rule, which was confirmed by the pope, 17 December, 1198. Felix returned to France to establish the order. He was received with great enthusiasm, and King Philip Augustus authorized the institute France and fostered it by signal benefactions. Margaret of Blois granted the order twenty acres of the wood where Felix had built his first hermitage, and on almost the same spot he erected the famous monastery of Cerfroi, the mother-house of the institute. Within forty years the order possessed six hundred monasteries in almost every part of the world. St. Felix and St. John of Matha were forced to part, the latter went to Rome to found a house of the order, the church of which, Santa Maria in Navicella, still stands on the Caeclian Hill. St. Felix remained in France to look after the interests of the congregation. He founded a house in Paris attached to the church of St. Maturinus, which afterwards became famous under Robert Guguin, master general of the order. Though the Bull of his canonization is no longer extant, it is the constant tradition of his institute that he was canonized by Urban IV in 1262. Du Plessis tells us that his feast was kept in the Diocese of Meaux in 1215. In 1666 Alexander VII declared him a saint because of immemorial cult. His feast was transferred to 20 November by Innocent XI in 1679.

MICHAEL M. O'KANE

François-Xavier de Feller

An author and apologist, b at Brussels 18 August, 1735; d. at Ratisbon 22 May, 1802. He received his primary scientific education in the Jesuit College at Luxemburg, studied philosophy and the exact sciences at Reims, 1752-54, after which he joined the Society of Jesus at Tournai. Appointed professor of humanities soon after, he edited the "Musae Leodienses" (Liège, 1761), a collection of Latin poems in two volumes composed lay his pulpils. Later he taught theology in various institutions of the order in Luxemburg and Tyrnau (Hungary). After the suppression of the order he was active as preacher in Liège and Luxemburg until, at the approach of the French army in 1794, he emigrated to Paderborn and joined the local college of the ex-Jesuits. After staying there two years, he accepted the invitation of the Prince of Hohenlohe to come to Bavaria and join the court of the Prince-Bishop of Freising and Ratisbon, Joseph Konrad von Schroffenburg, with whom he remained, dividing his time between Freising, Ratisbon, and Berchtesgaden.

Feller was very amiable and talented, gifted with a prodigious memory, and combined diligent study with these abilities. His superiors had given him every opportunity during his travels of cultivating all the branches of science then known, and the wealth and diversity of his writings prove that he made good use of his advantages. All his writings attest his allegiance to the Jesuit Order and his untiring zeal for the Catholic religion and the Holy See.

Although he became prominent as a literary man only after the suppression of his order, he had previously contributed articles of note to the periodical "La clef du cabinet des princes de l'Europe, ou recucil historique et politique sur les matières du temps" (Luxemburg, 1760). During the years 1773-1794 he was the sole contributor to this journal, which comprised in all sixty volumes and was, from the first mentioned date (1773), published under the title "Journal historique et litteraire". Because he publicly denounced the illegal and despotic attempts at reform on the part of Joseph II, the journal was suppressed in Austrian territory and was, consequently, transplanted first to Liège and then to Maastricht. Its principal articles were published separately as "Melanges de politique, de morale chrétienne et de littérature" (Louvain, 1822), and as "Cours de morale chrétienne et de littérature religieuse" (Paris, 1826). His next work of importance is entitled "Dictionnaire historique, ou histoire abrégée de tous les hommes qui se sont fait un nom par le genie, les talents, les vertus, les erreurs, etc., depuis le commencement du monde jusqu'a nos jours" (Augsburg, 1781-1784), 6 vols. He shaped this work on the model of a simular one by Chaudon without giving the latter due credit; he also showed a certain amount of prejudice, for the most part lauding the Jesuits as masters of science and underrating others, especially those suspected of Jansenistic tendencies. This work was frequently revised and republished, e.g. by Ecury, Ganith, Henrion, Pérennès, Simonin, Weiss, etc.; from 1837 it appeared under the title of "Biographie universelle". His principal work, which first appreared under the pen-name "Flexier de Reval", is "Catéchisme philosophique ou recueil d'observations propres à défendre la religion chrétienne contre ses ennemis" (Liège, 1772). In his treatise, "Jugement d'un écrivain protestant touchant le livre de Justinus Febronius" (Leipzig, 1770), he attacked the tenets of that anti-papal writer. Many of his works are only of contemporary interest.

Biographie Universelle, XIII. 505; Hunter, Nomenclator.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Johann Michael Nathanael Feneberg

Born in Oberdorf, Allgau, Bavaria, 9 Feb., 1751; died 12 Oct., 1812. He studied at Kaufbeuren and in the Jesuit gymnasium at Augsburg, and in 1770 entered the Society of Jesus, at Landsberg, Bavaria. When the Society was suppressed in 1773, he left the town, but continued his studies, was ordained in 1775 and appointed professor in the gymnasium of St. Paul at Ratisbon. From 1778-85 he held a modest benefice at Oberdorf and taught a private school, in 1785 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and poetry at the gymnasium of Dillingen, but was removed in 1793, together with several other professors suspected of leanings towards Illuminism. A plan of studies drawn up by him for the gymnasium brought him many enemies also. He was next given the parish of Seeg comprising some two thousand five hundred and received as assistants the celebrated author Christoph Schmid, and X. Bayer. He was a model pastor in every respect. Within a short time he executed a chart of the eighty-five villages in his parish, and took a census of the entire district.

In the first year of his pastoral service he sustained severe injuries by a fall from his horse, which necessitated the amputation of one leg just below the knee. He bore the operation without an anasthetic, and consoled himself for the loss of the limb by saying: Non pedibus, sed corde diligimus Deum (We love God notwith our feet but with our hearts). Shortly after, his relations with the priest Martin Boos led him to be suspected of false mysticism. Boos had created such a sensation by his sermons that he was compelled to flee for safety. He took at Seeg with Feneberg, who was a relation and assisted him in parochial for nearly a year. In the meantime he strove to convert or "awaken" Feneberg life, the life of faith and to the exclusion of good works. Boos's followers were called the Erweckten Brüder (Awakened Brethren). Among these brethren, many of whom were priests, Feneberg was called Nathanael and his two assistants Markus and Silas.

Boos's preaching and conduct at Seeg was reported to the ordinary of Augsburg, and Feneberg, with his assistants, Bayer and Siller, were also involved. In February, 1797, an episcopal commissioner arrived in Seeg, and in Feneberg's absence seized all his papers, private correspondence and manuscripts, and carried them to Augsburg. Feneberg, with his assistants, appeared before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Augsburg in August, 1797; they were required to subscribe to the condemnation of ten erroneous propositions and then permitted to return to their parish. They all protested that they had never held any of the propositions in the sense implied. It does not appear that Feneberg was subsequently molested in this connection, nor did he ever fail to show due respect and obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1805 he resigned the parish of Seeg and accepted that of Vohringen, which was smaller but returned slightly better revenues. This appointment and the assistance of generous friends enabled him to pay the debts he had incurred on account of his trouble and the political disturbances of the time. For a month before his death he suffered great bodily pain but he prayed unceasingly, and devoutedly receiving the sacraments expired.

He remained friendly to Boos even after the latter's condemnation, and regretted that his friend, Bishop Sailer, was not more sympathetic to mysticism. Feneberg was a man of singular piety, candour, and zeal but failed to see the dangers lurking in Boos pietism. Numbers of the disciples of Boos--as many as four hundred at one time--became Protestants, although he himself remained nominally in the Church. Feneberg is the author of a translation of the New Testament, which was published by Bishop Wittmann of Ratishon.

ALEXIS HOFFMANN

François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon

A celebrated French bishop and author, b. in the Château de Fénelon in Périgord (Dordogne), 6 August, 1651; d. at Cambrai, 7 January, 1715. He came of ancient family of noble birth but small means, the most famous of his ancestors being Bertrand de Salignac (d. 1599), who fought at Metz under the Duke Guise and became ambassador to England; also François de Salignac I, Louis de Salignac I, Louis de Saligac II, and François de Salignac II, bishops of Sarlat between 1567 and 1688. Fénelon was the second of the three children of Pons de Salignac, Count de La Mothe-Fénelon, by his second wife, Louise de La Cropte. Owing to his delicate health Fénelon's childhood was passed in his father's château under a tutor, who succeeded in giving him a keen taste for the classics and a considerable knowledge of Greek literature, which influenced the development of his mind in marked degree. At the age of twelve he was sent to the neighbouring University of Cahors, where he studied rhetoric and philosophy, and obtained his first degrees. As he had already expressed his intention of entering the Church, one of his uncles, Marquis Antoine de Fénelon, a friend of Monsieur Olier and St. Vincent de Paul, sent him to Paris and placed him in the Collège du Plessis, whose students followed the course of theology at the Sorbonne. There Fénelon became a friend of Antoine de Noailles, afterwards, Cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, and showed such decided talent that at the age of fifteen he was chosen to preach a public sermon, in which he acquitted admirably. To facilitate his preparation for the priesthood, the marquis sent his nephew to the Séminaire de Saint-Sulpice (about 1672), then under the direction of Monsieur Tronson, but the young man was placed in the small community reserved for ecclesiastics whose health did not permit them to follow the excessive exercises of the seminary. In this famous school, of which he always retained affectionate memories. Fénelon was grounded not only in the practice of piety and priestly virtue, but above all in solid Catholic doctrine, which saved him later from Jansenism and Gallicanism. Thirty years later, in a letter to Clement XI, he congratulates himself on his training by M. Tronson in the knowledge of his Faith and the duties of the ecclesiastical life. About 1675 he was ordained priest and for a while thought of devoting himself to the Eastern missions. This was, however, only a passing inclination. Instead he joined the commuity of Saint Sulpice and gave himself up to the works of the priesthood especially preaching and catechizing.

In 1678 Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, entrusted Fénelon with the direction of the house of "Nouvelles-Catholiques", a community founded in 1634 by Archbishop Jean-François de Gondi for Protestant young women about to enter the Church or converts who needed to be strengthened in the Faith. It was a new and delicate form of apostolate which thus offered itself to Fénelon's zeal and required all the resources of his theological knowledge, persuasive eloquence, and magnetic personality. Within late years his conduct has been severely criticized, and he has been even called intolerant but these charges are without serious foundation and have not been accepted even by the Protestant authors of the "Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses"; their verdict on Fénelon is that in justice to him it must be said that in making converts he ever employed persuasion rather than severity".

When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, by which Henry IV had granted freedom of public worship to the Protestants, missionaries were chosen from among the greatest orators of the day, e.g. Bourdaloue, Fléchier, and others, and were sent to those parts of France where heretics were most numerous, to labour for their conversion. At the suggestion of his friend Bossuet, Fénelon was sent with five companions to Santonge, where he manifested great zeal, though his methods were always tempered by gentleness. According to Cardinal de Bausset, he induced Louis XIV to remove all troops and all evidences of compulsion from the places he visited, and it is certain that he proposed and insisted on many methods of which the king did not approve. "When hearts are to be moved", he wrote to Seignelay," force avails not. Conviction is the only real conversion". Instead of force he employed patience, established classes, and distributed New Testaments and catechisms in the vernacular. Above all, he laid especial emphasis on preaching provided the sermons were by gentle preachers who have a faculty not only for instructing but for winning the confidence of their hearers". It is doubtless true, as recently published documents prove, that he did not altogether repudiate measures of force, but he only allowed them as a last resource. Even then his severity was confined to exiling from their villages a few recalcitrants and to constraining others under the small penalty of five sous to attend the religious instructions in the churches. Nor did he think that preachers ought to advocate openly even these measures; similarly he was unwilling to have known the Catholic authorship of pamphlets against Protestant ministers which he proposed to have printed in Holland. This was certainly an excess of cleverness; but it proves at least that Fénelon was not in sympathy with that vague tolerance founded on scepticism which the eighteenth century rationalists charged him with. In such matters he shared the opinions of all the other great Catholics of his day. With Bossuet and St. Augustine he held that "to be obliged to do good is always an advantage and that heretics and schismatics, when forced to apply their minds to the consideration of truth, eventually lay aside their erroneous beliefs, whereas they would never have examined these matters had not authority constrained them."

Before and after his mission at Saintonge, which lasted but a few months (1686-1687), Fénelon formed many dear friendships. Bossuet was already his friend, the great bishop was at the summit of his fame, and was everywhere looked up to as the oracle of the Church of France. Fénelon showed him the utmost deference, visited him at his country-house at Germany, and assisted at his spiritual conferences and his lectures on the Scriptures at Versailles. It was under his inspiration, perhaps even at his request, that Fénelon wrote about this time his "Réfutation du système de Malebranche sur la nature et sur la grâce". In this he attacks with great velour and at length the theories of the famous Oratorian on optimism, the Creation, and the Incarnation. This treatise, though annoted by Bousset, Fénelon considered it unwise to publish; it saw the light only in 1820. First among the friends of Fénelon at this period were the Duc de Bauvilliers and the Duc de Chevreuse, two influential courtiers, eminent for their piety, who had married two daughters of Colbert, minister of Louis XIV. One of these, the Duchesse de Beauvilliers, mother of eight daughters, asked Fénelon for advice concerning their education. His reply was the "Traité de l'education des filles", in which he insists on education begining at an early age and on the instruction of girls in all the duties of their future condition of life. The religious teaching he recommends is one solid enough to enable them to refute heresies if necessary. He also advises a more serious course of studies than was then customary. Girls ought to be learned without pedantry; the form of instruction should be concrete, sensible, agreeable, and prudent, in a manner to aid their natural abilities. In many ways his pedagogy was ahead of his time, and we may yet learn much from him.

The Duc de Beauvilliers, who had been the first to test in his own family the value of the "Traité de l'education des filles", was in 1689 named governor of the grandchildren of Louis XIV. He hastened to secure Fénelon as tutor to the eldest of these princes, the Duke of Burgundy. It was a most important post, seeing that the formation of the future King of France lay in his hands; but it was not without great difficulties, owing to the violent, haughty, and character of the pupil. Fénelon brought to his task a whole-hearted zeal and devotion. Everything down to, the Latin themes and versions, was made to serve in the taming of this impetuous spirit. Fénelon prepared them the better to his plans. With the same object in view, he wrote his "Fables" and his "Dialogues des Morts", but especially his "Télémaque", in which work, under the guise of pleasant fiction, he taught the young prince lessons of self-control, and all the duties required by his exalted position. The results of this training were wonderful. The historian Saint-Simon, as a rule hostile to Fénelon, says: "De cet abîme sortit un prince, affable, doux, modéré, humain, patient, humble, tout appliqué à ses devoirs." It has been asked in our day if Fénelon did not succeed too well. When the prince grew to man's estate, his piety seemed often too refined; he was continually examining himself, reasoning for and against, till he was unable to reach a definite decision, his will being paralysed by fear of doing the wrong thing. However, these defects of character, against which Fénelon in his letters was the first to protest, did not show themselves in youth. About 1695 every one who came in contact with the prince was in admiration at the change in him.

To reward the tutor, Louis XIV gave him, in 1694, the Abbey of Saint-Valéry, with its annual revenue of fourteen thousand livres. The Académie had opened its doors to him and Madame de Maintenon, the morganatic wife of the king, began to consult him on matters of conscience, and on the regulation of the house of Saint-Cyr, which she had just established for the training of young girls. Soon afterwards the archiepiscopal See of Cambrai, one of the best in France, fell vacant, and the king offered it to Fénelon, at the same time expressing a wish that he would continue to instruct the Duke of Burgundy. Nominated in February, 1696, Fénelon was consecrated in August of the same year by Bossuet in the chapel of Saint-Cyr. The future of the young prelate looked brilliant, when he fell into deep disgrace.

The cause of Fénelon's trouble was his connection with Madame Guyon, whom he had met in the society of his friends, the Beauvilliers and the Chevreuses. She was a native of Orléans, which she left when about twenty-eight years old, a widowed mother of three children, to carry on a sort of apostolate of mysticism, under the direction of Père Lacombe, a Barnabite. After many journeys to Geneva, and through Provence and Italy, she set forth her ideas in two works, "Le moyen court et facile de faire oraison" and "Les torrents spirituels". In exaggerated language characteristic of her visionary mind, she presented a system too evidently founded on the Quietism of Molinos, that had just been condemned by Innocent XI in 1687. There were, however, great divergencies between the two systems. Whereas Molinos made man's earthly perfection consist in a state of uninterrupted contemplation and love, which would dispense the soul from all active virtue and reduce it to absolute inaction, Madame Guyon rejected with horror the dangerous conclusions of Molinos as to the cessation of the necessity of offering positive resistance to temptation. Indeed, in all her relations with Père Lacombe, as well as with Fénelon, her virtuous life was never called in doubt. Soon after her arrival in Paris she became acquainted with many pious persons of the court and in the city, among them Madame de Maintenon and the Ducs de Beauvilliers and Chevreuse, who introduced her to Fénelon. In turn, he was attracted by her piety, her lofty spirituality, the charm of her personality, and of her books. It was not long, however, before the Bishop of Chartres, in whose diocese Saint-Cyr was, began to unsettle the mind of Madame de Maintenon by questioning the orthodoxy of Madame Guyon's theories. The latter, thereupon, begged to have her works submitted to an ecclesiastical commission composed of Bossuet, de Noailles, who was then Bishop of Châlons, later Archbishop of Paris, and M. Tronson; superior of-Saint-Sulpice. After an examination which lasted six months, the commission delivered its verdict in thirty-four articles known as the "Articles d' Issy", from the place near Paris where the commission sat. These articles, which were signed by Fénelon and the Bishop of Chartres, also by the members of the commission, condemned very briefly Madame Guyon's ideas, and gave a short exposition of the Catholic teaching on prayer. Madame Guyon submitted to the condemnation, but her teaching spread in England, and Protestants, who have had her books reprinted have always expressed sympathy with her views. Cowper translated some of her hymns into English verse; and her autobiography was translated into English by Thomas Digby (London, 1805) and Thomas Upam (New York, 1848). Her books have been long forgotten in France.

In accordance with the decisions taken at Issy, Bossuet now wrote his instruction on the "Etats d' oraison", as an explanation of the thirty-four articles. Fénelon refused to sign it, on the plea that his honour forbade him to condemn a woman who had already been condemned. To explain his own views of the "Articles d'Issy", he hastened to publish the "Explication des Maximes des Saints", a rather arid treatise in forty-five articles. Each article was divided into two paragraphs, one laying down the true, the other the false, teaching concerning the love of God. In this work he undertakes to distinguish clearly every step in the upward way of the spiritual life. The final end of the Christian soul is pure love of God, without any admixture of self-interest, a love in which neither fear of punishment nor desire of reward has any part. The means to this end, Fénelon points out, are those Iong since indicated by the Catholic mystics, i.e. holy indifference, detachment, self-abandonment, passiveness, through all of which states the soul is led by contemplation. Fénelon's book was scarcely published when it aroused much opposition. The king, in particular, was angry. He distrusted all religious novelties, and he reproached Bossuet with not having warned him of the ideas of his grandsons' tutor. He appointed the Bishops of Meaux, Chartes, and Paris to examine Fénelon's work and select passages for condemnation, but Fénelon himself submitted the book to the judgement of Holy See (27 April, 1697). A vigorous conflict broke out at once, particularly between Bossuet and Fénelon. Attack and reply followed too fast for analysis here. The works of Fénelon on the subject fill six volumes, not to speak of the 646 letters relating to Quietism, the writer proving himself a skillful polemical writer, deeply versed in spiritual things, endowed with quick intelligence and a mental suppleness not always to be clearly distinguished from quibbling and a straining of the sense. After a long and detailed examination by the consultors and cardinals of the Holy Office, lasting over two years and occupyng 132 sessions, "Les Maxims des Saints" was finally condemned (12 March, 1699) as containing propositions which, in the obvious meaning of the words, or else because of the sequence of the thoughts, were "temerarious, scandalous, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, pernicious in practice, and false in fact". Twenty-three propositions were selected as having incurred this censure, but the pope by no means intended to imply that he approved the rest of the book. Fénelon submitted at once. "We adhere to this brief", he wrote in a pastoral letter in which he made known Rome's decision to the flock, "and we accept it not only for the twenty three propositions but for the whole book, simply, absolutely, and without a shadow of reservation." Most of his contemporaries found his submission adequate, edifying and admirable. In recent times, however, scattered letters have enabled a few critics to doubt its sincerity. In our opinion a few words written impulsively, and contradicted by the whole tenor of the writers's life, cannot justify so grave a charge. It must be remembered, too, that at the meeting of the bishops held to receive the Brief of condemnation, Fénelon declared that he laid aside his own opinion and accepted the judgement of Rome, and that if this act of submission seemed lacking in any way, he was ready to do whatever Rome would suggest. The Holy See never required anything more than the above-mentioned spontaneous act.

Louis XIV, who had done all he could to bring the condemnation of the "Maximes des Saints", had already punished its author by ordering him to remain within the limits of his diocese. Vexed later at the publication of "Télémaque", in which he saw his person and his government subjected to criticism, the king could never be prevailed upon to revoke this command. Fénelon submitted without complaint or regret, and gave himself up entirely to the care of his flock. With a revenue of two hundred thousand livres and eight hundred parishes, some of which were on Spanish territory, Cambrai, which had been regained by France only in 1678, was one of the most important sees in the kingdom. Fénelon gave up several months of each year to a visitation of his archdiocese, which was not even interrupted by the War of the Spanish Succession, when opposing armies were camped in various parts of his territory. The captains of these armies, full of veneration for his Fénelon, left him free to come and go as he would. The remainder of the year he spent in his episcopal palace at Cambrai, where with his relatives and his friends, the Abbés de Langeron, de Chanterac, and de Beaumont, he led an uneventful life, monastic in its regularity. Every year he gave a Lenten course in one or other important parish of his diocese, and on the principal feasts he preached in his own cathedral. His sermons were short and simple composed after a brief meditation, and never committed to writing; with the exception of some few preached on more important occasions, they have not been preserved. His dealings with his clergy were always marked by condescension and cordiality. "His priests", says Saint-Simon, "to whom he made himself both father and brother, bore him in their hearts." He took a deep interest in their seminary training, assisted at the examination of those who were to be ordained, and gave them conferences during their retreat. He presided over the concursus for benefices and made inquiries among the pastors concerning the qualifications of each candidate.

Fénelon was always approachable, and on his walks often conversed with those he chanced to meet. He loved to visit the peasants in their houses, interested himself in their joys and sorrows, and, to avoid paining them, accepted the simple gifts of their hospitality. During the War of the Spanish Succession the doors of his palace were open to all the poor who took refuge in Cambrai. The rooms and stairways were filled with them, and his gardens and vestibules sheltered their live stock. He is yet remembered in the vicinity of Cambrai and the peasants still give their children the name Fénelon, as that of a saint.

Engrossed as Fénelon was with the administration of his diocese, he never lost sight of the general interests of the Church. This became evident when Jansenism, quiescent for nearly thirty years, again raised its head on the occasion of the famous Cas de Conscience, by which an anonymous writer endeavoured to put new life into the old distinction between the "question of law" and "question of fact" (question de droit et question de fait), acknowledging that the Church could legally condemn the famous five propositions attributed to Jansenius, but denying that she could oblige any one to believe that they were really to be found in the "Augustinus" of that writer. Fénelon multiplied publications of every kind against the reviving heresy; he wrote letters, pastoral instruction, memoirs, in French and in Latin, which fill seven volumes of his works. He set himself to combat the errors of the Cas de Conscience, to refute the theory known as "respectful silence", and to enlighten Clement XI on public opinion in France Père Quesnel brought fresh fuel to the strife by his "Reflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament", which was solemnly condemned by the Bull "Unigenitus" (1713). Fénelon defended this famous pontifical constitution in a series of dialogues intended to influence men of the world. Great as was his zeal against error, he was always gentle with the erring so that Saint-Simon could say "The Low Countries swarmed with Jansenists, and his Diocese of Cambrai, in particular, was full of them. In both places they found an ever-peaceful refuge, and were glad and content to here peaceably under one who was their enemy with his pen. They had no fears of their archbishop, who, though opposed to their beliefs, did not disturb their tranquillity."

In spite of the multiplicity of his labours, Fénelon found time to carry on an absorbing correspondence with his relatives, friends, priests, and in fact every one who sought his advice. It is in this mass of correspondence, ten volumes of which have reached us, that we may see Fénelon as a director of souls. People of every sphere of life, men and women of the work, religious, soldiers, courtiers, servants, are here met with, among them Mesdames de Maintenon, de Gramont, de la Maisonfort, de Montebron, de Noailles, members of the Colbert family, the Marquis de Seignelay, the Duc de Chaulnes, above all the Ducs de Chevreuse and de Beauvilliers, not forgetting the Duke of Burgundy. Fénelon shows how well he possessed all the qualities he required from directors, patience, knowledge of the human heart and the spiritual life, equanimity of disposition, firmness, and straightforwardness, "together with a quiet gaiety" altogether removed from any stern or affected austerity". In return he required docility of mind and entire submission of will. He aimed at leading souls to the pure love of God, as far as such a thing is humanly possible, for though the errors of the "Maximes des Saints" do not reappear in the letters of direction, it is still the same Fénelon, with the same tendencies, the same aiming at self-abandonment and detachment from all personal interests, all kept, however, within due limits; for as he says "this love of God does not require all Christians to practice austerities like those of the ancient solitaries, but merely that they be sober, just, and moderate in the use of all things expedient"; nor does piety, "like temporal affairs, exact a long and continuous application"; "the practice of devotion is in no way incompatible with the duties of one's state in life". The desire to teach his disciples the secret of harmonizing the duties of religion with those of everyday life suggests to Fénelon all sorts of advice, sometimes most unexpected from the pen of a director, especially when he happens to be dealing with his friends at court. This has given occasion to some of his critics to accuse him of ambition, and of being as anxious to control the state as to guide souls.

It is especially in the writings intended for the Duke of Burgundy that his political ideas are apparent. Besides a great number of letters, he sent him through his friends, the Ducs de Beauvilliers and de Chevreuse, an "Examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la Royauté", nine memoirs on the war of the Spanish Succession, and "Plans de Gouvernement, concretes avec le Duc de Chevreuse". If we add to this the "Télémaque", the "Lettre à Louis XIV", the "Essai sur le Gouvernement civil", and the "Mémoires sur les precautions à prendre après la mort du Duc de Bourgogne", we have a complete exposition of Fénelon's political ideas. We shall indicate only the points in which they are original for the period when they were written. Fénelon's ideal government was a monarchy limited by an aristocracy. The king was not to have absolute power; he was to obey the laws, which he was to draw up with the co-operation of the nobility; extraordinary subsidies were to be levied only with the consent of the people. At other times he was to be assisted by the States-General, which was to meet every three years, and by provincial assemblies, all to be advisory bodies to the king rather than representative assemblies. The state was to have charge of education; it was to control public manners by sumptuary legislation and to forbid both sexes unsuit able marriages (mésalliances). The temporal arm and the spiritual arm were to be independent of each other, but to afford mutual support. His ideal state is outlined with much wisdom in his political writings are to be found many ohservations remarkably judicious but also not a little Utopianism.

Fénelon also took much interest in literature and philosophy. Monsieur Dacier, perpetual secretary to the Académie Française, having requested him, in the name of that body, to furnish him with his views on the works it ought to undertake when the "Dictionnaire" was finished, Fénelon replied in his "Lettre sur les occupations de l'Académie Française", a work still much admired in France. This letter, which treats of the French tongue, of rhetoric, poetry, history, and ancient and modern writers, exhibits a well-balanced mind acquainted with all the masterpieces of antiquity, alive to the charm of simplicity, attached to classical traditions yet discreetly open to new ideas (especially in history), also, however, to some chimerical theories, at least concerning things poetical. At this very time the Duc d'Orléans, the future regent was consulting him on quite different subjects. This prince, a sceptic through circumstances rather than by any force of reasoning, profited by the appearance of Fénelon's "Traité de l'existence de Dieu" to ask its author some questions on the worship due to God, the immortality of the soul, and free will. Fénelon replied in a series of letters, only the first three of which are answers to the difficulties proposed by the prince. Together they form a continuation of the "Traité de l'existence de Dieu", the first part of which had been published in 1712 without Fénelon's knowledge. The second part appeared only in 1718, after its author's death. Though an almost forgotten work of his youth, it was received with much approval, and was soon translated into English and German. It is from his letters and this treatise that we learn something about the philosophy of Fénelon. It borrows from both St. Augustine and Descartes. For Fénelon the strongest arguments for the existence of God were those based on final causes and on the idea of the infinite, both developed along broad lines and with much literary charm, rather than with precision or originality.

Fénelon's last years were saddened by the death of his best friends. Towards the end of 1710 he lost Abbe de Langeron, his lifelong companion; in February, 1712, his pupil, the Duke of Burgundy, died. A few months later the Duc de Chevreuse was taken away, and the Duc de Beauvilliers followed in August, 1714. Fénelon survived him only a few months, making a last request to Louis XIV to appoint a successor firm against Jansenism, and to favour the introduction of Sulpicians into his seminary. With him disappeared one of the most illustrious members of the French episcopate, certainly one of the most attractive men of his age. He owed his success solely to his great talents and admirable virtues. The renown he enjoyed during life increased after his death. Unfortunately, however, his fame among Protestants was largely due to his opposition to Bossuet, and among the philosophers to the fact that he opposed and was punished by Louis XIV. Fénelon is therefore for them a precursor of their own tolerant scepticism and their infidel philosophy, a forerunner of Rousseau, beside whom they placed him on the facade of the Pantheon. In our days a reaction has set in, due to the cult of Bossuet and the publication of Fénelon's correspondence, which has brought into bolder relief the contrasts of his character, showing him at once an ancient and a modern, Christian and profane, a mystic and a statesman, democrat and aristocrat, gentle and obstinate, frank and subtle. He would perhaps have seemed more human in our eyes were he a lesser rnan; nevertheless he remains one of the most attractive, brilliant, and puzzling figures that the Catholic Church has ever produced.

The most convenient and best edition of Fénelon's works is that begun by Lebel at Versailles in 1820 and completed at Paris by Leclere in 1830. It comprises twenty-two volumes, besides eleven volumes of letters, in all thirty-three volumes, not including an index volume. The various works are grouped under five five headings: (I) Theological and controversial works (Vols. I-XVI), of which the principal are: "Traité de l'existence et des attributs de Dieu", letters on various metaphysical and religious subjects; "Traité du ministère des pasteurs"; "De Summi Pontificis auctoritate", "Réfutation du système du P. Malebranche sur la nature et la grâce"; "Lettre à l'Evêque d'Arras sur la lecture de l'Ecriture Sainte en langue vulgaire", works on Quietisin and Jansenism. (2) Works on moral and spiritual subjects (Vols. XVII and XVIII): "Traité de l'éducation des filles"; sermons and works on piety. (3) Twenty-four pastoral charges (XVIII). (4) Literary works (Vols. XIX-XXII): "Dialogues des Morts"; "Télémaque"; "Dialogues sur l'éloquence". (5) Political writings (Vol. XXII): "Examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la Royauté"; various memoirs on the War of the Spanish Succession; "Plans du Gouvernement concertes avec le Duc de Chevreuse". The correspondence includes letters to friends at court, as Beauvilliers, Chevreuse, and the Duke of Burgundy; letters of direction, and letters on Quietism. To these must be added the "Explication des rnaximes des Saints sur la vie lnterieure" (Paris, 1697).

DE RAMSAY, Histoire de vie et des ouvrages de Fénelon (London, 1723), De BAUSSET, Histoire de Fénelon (Paris. 1808); TABARAND, Supplement aux histoires de Bossuet et de Fénelon (Paris, 1822), De BROGLIE, Feneton a Cambrai (Paris, 1884); JANET, Fénelon (Paris, 1892); CROUSLE, Fénelon et Bossuet (2 vols., Paris, 1894); DRUON, Fénelon archeveque de Cambrai (Paris, 1905); CAGNAC, Fénelon directeur de conscience (Paris, 1903); BRUNETIRE in La Grande Encyclopedie, s.v.; IDEM, Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la Iitterature française (Paris, 1893); DOUEN, L'intolerance de Fénelon (2d ed., Paris,1875); VERLAQUE, Lettres inedites de Fénelon (Paris, 1874)); IDEM, Fénelon Missionnaire (Marseilles, 1884); GUERRIER, Madam Guion, sa vie, sa doctrine, et son influence (Orléans, 1881); MASSON, Fénelon et Madame Guyon (Paris, 1907): DELPHANQUE, Fénelon et la doctrine de l'amour pur (Lille, 1907): SCANNELL, François Fénelon in lrish Eccl. Record, XI, (1901) 1-15, 413-432.

ANTOINE DEGERT

John Fenn

Born at Montacute near Wells in Somersetshire; d. 27 Dec., 1615. He was the eldest brother of Ven. James Fenn, the martyr, and Robert Fenn, the confessor. After being a chorister at Wells Cathedral, he went to Winchester School in 1547, and in 1550 to New College, Oxford, of which he was elected fellow in 1552. Next year he became head master of the Bury St. Edmunds' grammar-school, but was deprived of this office and also of his fellowship for refusing to take the oath of supremacy under Elizabeth. He thereupon went to Rome where after four years' study he was ordained priest about 1566. Having for a time been chaplain to Sir William Stanley's regiment in Flanders he settled at Louvain, where he lived for forty years. A great and valuable work to which he contrituted was the publication, in 1583, by Father John Gibbons, S.J., of the various accounts of the persecution, under the Title "Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicae in Angliâ", which was the groundwork of the invaluable larger collection published by Bridgewater under the same name in 1588. He also collected from old English sources some spiritual treatises for the Brigettine nuns of Syon. In 1609, when the English Augustinian Canonnesses founded St. Monica's Priory at Louvain, he became their first chaplain until in 1611 when his sight failed. Even then he continued to live in the priory and the nuns tended him till his death. Besides his "Vitae quorundam Martyrum in Angliâ", included in the "Concertatio", he translated into Latin Blessed John Fisher's "Treatise on the penitential Psalms" (1597) and two of his sermons; he also published English versions of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Osorio's reply to Haddon's attack on his letter to Queen Elizabeth (1568), Guerra's "Treatise of Tribulation", an Italian life of St. Catherine of Sienna (1609; 1867), and Loarte's "Instructions How to Meditate the Misteries of the Rosarie".

PITS, De Illustribus Angliae Scriptoribus (Paris, 1623); DODD, Church History (Brussels, 1737-42), I, 510; WOOD, ed. BLISS, Athenae Oxonienses, II,; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; HAMILTON, Chronicle of the English Augustinian Canonesses of St. Monica's Louvain (London, 1904).

EDWIN BURTON

Nicolaus Ferber

A Friar Minor and controversialist, born at Herborn, Germany, in 1485; died at Toulouse, 15 April, 1534. He was made provincial of the Franciscan province of Cologne and was honoured by Clement VII with the office of vicar-general of that branch of the order known as the Cismontane Observance, in which capacity he visited the various provinces of the order in England, Germany, Spain, and Belgium. At the instance of the bishops of Denmark, he was called to Copenhagen to champion the Catholic cause against Danish Lutheranism, and there he composed, in 1530, the "Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici", first edited by L. Schmitt, S.J., and published at Quaracchi (1902), which earned for him the sobriquet of Stagefyr (fire-brand). Ferber's principal work is entitled: "Locorum communium adversus hujus temporis hæreses Enchiridion", published at Cologne in 1528, with additions in 1529. Besides this he wrote "Assertiones CCCXXV adversus Fr. Lamberti paradoxa impia" etc. (Cologne, 1526, and Paris, 1534); and "Enarrationes latinæ Evangeliorum quadragesimalium", preached in German and published in Latin (Antwerp, 1533).

SCHMITT. Der Kölner Theolog Nicolaus Stagefyr und der Franziskaner Nicolaus Herborn (Freiburg, 1896); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1906), II, 1255-56; SBARALEA, Supplementum ad scriptores Ordinis Menorum, 556.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN.

Blessed Ferdinand

Prince of Portugal, b. in Portugal, 29 September, 1402; d. at Fez, in Morocco, 5 June, 1443. He was one of five sons, his mother being Philippa, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his father King John I, known in history for his victories over the Moors and in particular for his conquest of Ceuta, a powerful Moorish stronghold, and his establishment of an episcopal see within its walls. In early life Ferdinand suffered much from sickness, but bodily weakness did not hinder his growth in spirit, and even in his boyhood and youth he gave evidence of remarkable qualities of soul and intellect. With great strength of character and a keen sense of justice and order he combined an innocence, gentleness, and charity which excited the wonder of the royal court. He had a special predilection for prayer and for the ceremonies and devotions of the Church. After his fourteenth year he recited daily the canonical hours, rising at midnight for Matins. Always severe with himself, he was abstemious in his diet and fasted on Saturdays and on the eves of the feasts of the Church. He cared for the spiritual as well as the corporal necessities of his domestics, while his solicitude for the poor and oppressed was unbounded. His generosity towards the monasteries was impelled by his desire to share in their prayers and good works. He had himself enrolled for the same reason in all the pious congregations of the kingdom.

Upon the death of his father in 1433, his brother Edward (Duarte) ascended the throne, while he himself received but a small inheritance. It was then that he was induced to accept the grand-mastership of Aviz, in order that he might be better able to help the poor. As he was not a cleric, his brother, the king, obtained for him the necessary papal dispensation. The fame of his charity went abroad, and Pope Eugene IV, through the papal legate, offered him the cardinal's hat. This he refused, not wishing, as he declared, to burden his conscience.

Though living a life of great sanctity in the midst of the court, Ferdinand was not a mere recluse. He was also a man of action, and in his boyhood his soul was stirred by the heroic campaign against Ceuta. His mother, the queen, had nurtured the martial spirit of her sons, and it is even said that on her deathbed she gave them each a sword, charging them to use it in defence of widows, orphans, and their country, and in particular against unbelievers. An opportunity soon presented itself. In 1437 Edward planned an expedition against the Moors in Africa and placed his brothers Henry and Ferdinand in command. They set sail 22 Aug., 1437, and four days later arrived at Ceuta. During the voyage Ferdinand became dangerously ill, in consequence of an abcess and fever which he had concealed before the departure, in order not to delay the fleet. Through some mismanagement the Portuguese numbered only 6000 men, instead of 14,000, as ordered by the king. Though advised to wait for reinforcements, the two princes, impatient for the fray, advanced towards Tangiers, to which they lay siege. Ferdinand recovered slowly, but was not able to take part in the first battle.

The Portuguese fought bravely against great odds, but were finally compelled to make terms with the enemy, agreeing to restore Ceuta in return for a safe passage to their vessels. The Moors likewise demanded that one of the princes be delivered into their hands as a hostage for the delivery of the city. Ferdinand offered himself for the dangerous post, and with a few faithful followers, including João Alvarez, his secretary and later his biographer, began a painful captivity which ended only with his death. He was first brought to Arsilla by Salà ben Salà, the Moorish ameer. In spite of sickness and bodily sufferings, he continued all his devotions and showed great charity towards his Christian fellow-captives. Henry at first repaired to Ceuta, where he was joined by his brother John. Realizing that it would be difficult to obtain the royal consent to the restoration of the fortress, they proposed to exchange their brother for the son of Salà ben Salà, whom Henry held as a hostage. The Moor scornfully rejected the proposal, and both returned to Portugal to devise means of setting the prince free. Though his position was perilous in the extreme, the Portuguese Cortes refused to surrender Ceuta, not only on account of the treachery of the Moors, but because the place had cost them so dearly and might serve as a point of departure for future conquests. It was resolved to ransom him if possible. Salà ben Salà refused all offers, his purpose being to recover his former seat of government.

Various attempts were made to free the prince, but all proved futile and only served to make his lot more unbearable. On 25 May, 1438, he was sent to Fez and handed over to the cruel Lazurac, the king's vizier. He was first condemned to a dark dungeon and, after some months of imprisonment, was compelled to work like a slave in the royal gardens and stables. Amid insult and misery Ferdinand never lost patience. Though often urged to seek safety in flight, he refused to abandon his companions and grieved more for their sufferings, of which he considered himself the cause, than for his own. His treatment of his persecutors was respectful and dignified, but he would not descend to flattery to obtain any alleviation of his sufferings. During the last fifteen months of his life he was confined alone in a dark dungeon with a block of wood for his pillow and the stone floor for a bed. He spent most of his time in prayer and in preparation for death, which his rapidly failing health warned him was near at hand. In May, 1443, he was stricken with the fatal disease to which he finally succumbed. His persecutors refused to change his loathsome abode, although they allowed a physician and a few faithful friends to attend him. On the evening of 5 June, after making a general confession and a profession of faith, he peacefully gave up his soul to God. During the day he had confided to his confessor, who frequently visited him, that the Blessed Virgin with St. John and the Archangel Michael had appeared to him in a vision. Lazurac ordered the body of the prince to be opened and the vital organs removed, and then caused it to be suspended head downwards for four days on the walls of Fez. Nevertheless he was compelled to pay tribute to the constancy, innocence, and spirit of prayer of his royal victim. Of Ferdinand's companions, four shortly afterwards followed him to the grave, one joined the ranks of the Moors, and the others regained their liberty after Lazurac's death. One of the latter, João Alvarez, his secretary and biographer, carried his heart to Portugal in 1451, and in 1473 his body was brought to Portugal, and laid to rest in the royal vault at Batalha amid imposing ceremonies.

Prince Ferdinand has ever been held in great veneration by the Portuguese on account of his saintly life and devotion to country. Miracles are said to have been wrought at his intercession, and in 1470 he was beatified by Paul II. Our chief authority for the details of his life is João Alvarez, already referred to. Calderon made him a hero of one of his most remarkable dramas, "El Principe Constante y Mártir de Portugal".

      Alvarez, in Acta SS., June, I; Olfers, Leben des standhaften Prinzen (Berlin, 1827); Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal (New York), III.

Henry M. Brock

Ferdinand II

Emperor, eldest son of Archduke Karl and the Bavarian Princess Maria, b. 1578; d. 15 February, 1637. In accordance with Ferdinand I's disposition of his possessions, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola fell to his son Karl. As Karl died in 1590, when his eldest son was only twelve years old, the government of these countries had to be entrusted to a regent during the minority of Ferdinand. The latter began his studies under the Jesuits at Graz, and continued them in company with Maximilian of Bavaria at the University of Ingolstadt, also in charge of the Jesuits. According to the testimony of his professors, he displayed remarkable diligence, made rapid progress in the mathematical sciences, and above all gave evidence of a deeply religious spirit. On the completion of his studies, he took up the reins of government, although not yet quite seventeen. During a subsequent visit to Italy he made a vow in the sanctuary of Loreto to banish all heresy from the territories which might fall under his rule. He was of middle height, compact build, with reddish-blonde hair and blue eyes. His dress and the cut of his hair suggested the Spaniard, but his easy bearing towards all with whom he came into contact was rather German than Spanish. Even in the heat of conflict, a sense of justice and equity never deserted him. On two occasions, when his tenure of power was imperilled, he was unflinching and showed a true greatness of mind. Ferdinand was a man of unspotted morals, but lacking in statesman-like qualities and independence of judgment. He was wont to lay the responsibility for important measures on his counsellors (Freiherr von Eggenberg, Graf von Harrach, the Bohemian Chancellor, Zdencko von Lobkowitz, Cardinal-Prince Dietrichstein, etc.). Liberal even to prodigality, his exchequer was always low. In pursuance of the principle laid down by the Diet of Augsburg, 1555 (cuius regio eius et religio), he established the Counter-Reformation in his three duchies, while his cousin Emperor Rudolf II reluctantly recognized the Reformation.

As Ferdinand was the only archduke of his day with sufficient power and energy to take up the struggle against the estates then aiming at supreme power in the Austrian hereditary domains, the childless Emperor Matthias strove to secure for him the succession to the whole empire. During Matthias's life, Ferdinand was crowned King of Bohemia and of Hungary, but, when Matthias died during the heat of the religious war (20 March, 1619), Ferdinand's position was encompassed with perils. A united army of Bohemians and Silesians stood before the walls of Vienna; in the city itself Ferdinand was beset by the urgent demands of the Lower-Austrian estates, while the Bohemian estates chose as king in his place the head of the Protestant Union in Germany (the Palatine Frederick V), who could also count on the support of his father-in-law, James I of England. When the Austrian estates entered into an alliance with the Bohemians, and Bethlen Gabor, Prince of Transylvania, marched triumphantly through Hungary with the assistance of the Hungarian evangelical party, and was crowned king of that country, the end of the Hapsburg dynasty seemed at hand. Notwithstanding these troubles in his hereditary states, Ferdinand was chosen German Emperor by the votes of all the electors except Bohemia and the Palatinate. Spaniards from the Netherlands occupied the Palatinate, and the Catholic League (Bund der katholischen Fürsten Deutschlands) headed by Maximilian of Bavaria declared in his favour, although to procure this support Ferdinand was obliged to mortgage Austria to Maximilian. On 22 June, 1619, the Imperial General Buquoy repulsed from Vienna the besieging General Thurn; Mansfeld was crushed at Budweis, and on 8 November, 1620, the fate of Bohemia and of Frederick V was decided by the Battle of the White Mountain, near Prague.

The firm re-establishment of the Hapsburg dynasty was the signal for the introduction of the Counter-Reformation into Bohemia. Ferdinand annulled the privileges of the estates, declared void the concessions granted to the Bohemian Protestants by the Majestätsbrief of Rudolf II, and punished the heads of the insurrection with death and confiscation of goods. Protestantism was exterminated in Bohemia, Moravia, and Lower Austria; in Silesia alone, on the intercession of the Lutheran Elector of Saxony, the Reformers were treated with less severity.

The establishment of a general peace might perhaps now have been possible, if the emperor had been prepared to return his possessions to the outlawed and banished Palatine Elector Frederick. At first, Ferdinand seemed inclined to adopt this policy out of consideration for the Spanish, who did not wish to give mortal offence to James I, the father-in-law of the elector. However, the irritating conduct of Frederick and the Protestant Union, and the wish to recover Austria by indemnifying Maximilian in another way led Ferdinand to continue the war. Entrusted with the execution of the ban against the Elector Palatine, Maximilian assisted by the Spaniards took possession of the electoral lands, and in 1632 was himself raised to the electoral dignity.

Uneasy at the rapidly increasing power of the emperor, the estates of the Lower Saxon circle (Kreis) had meanwhile formed a confederation, and resolved under the leadership of their head, King Christian IV of Denmark to oppose the emperor (1625). In face of this combination, the Catholic Union or League under Count Tilly proved too weak to hold in check both its internal and external enemies; thus the recruiting of an independent imperial army was indispensable, though the Austrian exchequer was unable to meet the charge. However, Albrecht von Waldstein (usually known as Wallenstein), a Bohemian nobleman whom Ferdinand had a short time previously raised to the dignity of prince, offered to raise an army of 40,000 men at his own expense. His offer was accepted, and soon Wallenstein and Tilly repeatedly vanquished the Danes, Ernst von Mansfeld and Christian of Brunswick, the leaders of the Protestant forces. On the defeat of Christian at Lutter am Barenberge (27 August, 1626), the Danish Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein fell into the hands of the victorious Tilly, Christian was compelled to make the equitable peace of Lübeck on 12 May, 1629, and Wallenstein was invested with the lands of the Dukes of Mecklenburg, allies of Christian.

Contemporaneously, an insurrection broke out among the Austrian peasants for the recovery of their ecclesiastical rights abrogated by the emperor. This rising was soon quelled, but, as Wallenstein did not conceal his intention to establish the emperor's rule in Germany on a more absolute basis, the princes of the empire were unceasing in their complaints, and demanded Wallenstein's dismissal. The excitement of the princes, especially those of the Protestant faith, ran still higher when Ferdinand published, in 1629, the "Edict of Restitution", which directed Protestants to restore all ecclesiastical property taken from the Catholics since the Convention of Passau, in 1552(2 archbishoprics, 12 bishoprics and many monastic seigniories, especially in North Germany). At the meeting of the princes in Ratisbon (1630), when Ferdinand wished to procure the election of his son as King of Rome, the princes headed by Maximilian succeeded in prevailing on the emperor to remove Wallenstein. The command of the now reduced imperial troops was entrusted to Tilly, who with these forces and those of the League marched against Magdeburg; this city, formerly the see of an archbishop, energetically opposed the execution of the Edict of Restitution. Even before Wallenstein's dismissal on 4 July, 1630, Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, had landed at the mouth of the Oder, but, as the Protestant estates (notable Brandenburg and Saxony) hesitated to enter into an alliance with him, he was unable at first to accomplish anything decisive. When, however, in May, 1631, Tilly stormed and reduced to ashes the town of Magdeburg, the Electors of Brandenburg and Saxony openly espoused the cause of Gustavus Adolphus. After the utter defeat of Tilly at Breitenfeld (September, 1631), Gustavus Adolphus advanced through Thuringia and Franconia to the Rhine, while the Saxon army invaded Bohemia and occupied its capital, Prague. In 1632, the Swedish King invaded Bavaria. Tilly faced him on the Lech, but was defeated, and mortally wounded. Gustavus Adolphus was now master of Germany, the League was overthrown, and the emperor threatened in his hereditary domain. In this crisis Ferdinand induced Wallenstein to raise another army of 40,000 men, and entrusted him with unlimited authority. On 6 November, 1632, a battle was fought at Lützen near Leipzig, where Gustavus Adolphus was slain, though the Swedish troops remained masters of the battle-field. Wallenstein was now in a position to continue the war with energy, but after the second half of 1633 he displayed an incomprehensible inactivity. The explanation is that Wallenstein had formed the resolution to betray the emperor, and, with the help of France, to seize Bohemia. His plan miscarried, however, and led to his assassination at Eger on 25 February, 1634. The emperor had no hand in this murder. On 27 August of the same year, the imperial army under the emperor's eldest son, Ferdinand, inflicted so crushing a defeat on the Swedes at Nördlingen that the Protestants of south-western Germany turned for help to France. On 30 May, 1636, by the cession of both Upper and Lower Lausitz, Ferdinand became reconciled with Saxony, which became his ally. On 24 September, the combined imperial and Saxon armies were defeated at Wittstock by the Swedes under Baner. France now revealed its real policy, and dispatched a powerful army to join the ranks of the emperor's foes. Ferdinand lived to witness the election of his son as German Emperor (22 December, 1636), and his coronation as King of Bohemia and Hungary. He died, however, 15 February, 1637, without witnessing the end of this destructive conflict, known as the Thirty Years War. In his will, he expressly provided for the succession of the first-born of is house and the indivisibility of his hereditary states.

HURTER, Geschichte Kaiser Ferdinands II und seiner Zeit (11 vols. Schaffhausen, 1850-1864); GINDELY, Geschichte de dreissigjährigen Krieges (3 vols., Prague, 1882); KLOPP, Tilly im dreissigjährigen Kriege (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1861); HUBER, Geschichte Oesterreichs (5 vols., Prague and Leipzig, 1894).

KARL KLAAR

St. Ferdinand III

King of Leon and Castile, member of the Third Order of St. Francis, born in 1198 near Salamanca; died at Seville, 30 May, 1252. He was the son of Alfonso IX, King of Leon, and of Berengeria, the daughter of Alfonso III, King of Castile, and sister of Blanche, the mother of St. Louis IX.

In 1217 Ferdinand became King of Castile, which crown his mother renounced in his favour, and in 1230 he succeeded to the crown of Leon, though not without civil strife, since many were opposed to the union of the two kingdoms. He took as his counsellors the wisest men in the State, saw to the strict administration of justice, and took the greatest care not to overburden his subjects with taxation, fearing, as he said, the curse of one poor woman more than a whole army of Saracens. Following his mother's advice, Ferdinand, in 1219, married Beatrice, the daughter of Philip of Swabia, King of Germany, one of the most virtuous princesses of her time. God blessed this union with seven children: six princes and one princess. The highest aims of Ferdinand's life were the propagation of the Faith and the liberation of Spain from the Saracen yoke. Hence his continual wars against the Saracens. He took from them vast territories, Granada and Alicante alone remaining in their power at the time of his death. In the most important towns he founded bishoprics, reestablished Catholic worship everywhere, built churches, founded monasteries, and endowed hospitals. The greatest joys of his life were the conquests of Cordova (1236) and Seville (1248). He turned the great mosques of these places into cathedrals, dedicating them to the Blessed Virgin. He watched over the conduct of his soldiers, confiding more in their virtue than in their valour, fasted strictly himself, wore a rough hairshirt, and often spent his nights in prayer, especially before battles. Amid the tumult of the camp he lived like a religious in the cloister. The glory of the Church and the happiness of his people were the two guiding motives of his life. He founded the University of Salamanca, the Athens of Spain. Ferdinand was buried in the great cathedral of Seville before the image of the Blessed Virgin, clothed, at his own request, in the habit of the Third Order of St. Francis. His body, it is said, remains incorrupt. Many miracles took place at his tomb, and Clement X canonized him in 1671. His feast is kept by the Minorites on the 30th of May.

FERDINAND HECKMANN

Diocese of Ferentino

(FERENTINUM)

In the province of Rome, immediately subject to the Holy See. The town was in antiquity the chief place of the Hernici. Its ancient origin is borne out by the numerous remains of its cyclopean walls, especially near the site of the ancient fortress where the cathedral now stands. In the days of the kings there was strife between Rome and Ferentinum which then belonged to the Volscians. The Consul Furius gave it over to the Hernici, and in 487, A.U.C., it became a Roman town (municipium), and shared thenceforth the fortunes of Rome. Local legend attributes the first preaching of the Gospel in Ferentinum to Sts. Peter and Paul; they are said to have consecrated St. Leo as its first bishop. In the persecution of Diocletian the centurion Ambrose suffered martyrdom (304) at Ferentino; possibly also the martyrdom of St. Eutychius belongs to that period. In the time of Emperor Constantine the town had its own bishop; but the first known to us by the name is Bassus, present at Roman synods, 487 and 492-493. St. Redemptus (about 570) is mentioned in the "Dialogues" of St. Gregory the Great; and he also refers to a Bishop Boniface. Other known bishops are Trasmondo Sognino (1150), who died in prison; Ubaldo (1150), Iegate of Adrian IV to the princes of Christendom in favour of a crusade, later the consecrator of the antipope Victor IV; Giacomo (A.D. 1276), legate of John XXI to Emperor Michael Palaeologus; Landolfo Rosso (1297), who rendered good service to Boniface VIII; Francesco Filippesio (1799), legate of Julius II to the Emperor Maximilian.

Ferentino has (1909) 19 parishes and 45,000 souls, 3 boys' and 2 girls' Schools; 6 monasteries for men; and 8 convents tor women.

U. BENIGNI

Sts. Fergus

St. Fergus Cruithneach

Died about 730, known in the Irish martyrologies as St. Fergus Cruithneach, or the Pict. The Breviary of Aberdeen states that he had been a bishop for many years in Ireland when he came on a mission to Alba with some chosen priests and other clerics. He settled first near Strageath, in the present parish of Upper Strathearn, in Upper Perth, erected three churches in that district. The churchs of Strageath, Blackford, and Dolpatrick are found there to-day dedicated to St. Patrick. He next evangelized Caithness and established there the churches of Wick and Halkirk. Thence he crossed to Buchan in Aberdeenshire and founded a church at Lungley, a village now called St. Fergus. Lastly, he established a church at Glammis in Forfarshire. He went to Rome in 721 and was present with Sedulius and twenty other bishops at a synod in the basilica of St. Peter, convened by Gregory II. His remains were deposited in the church of Glammis and were the object of much veneration in the Middle Ages. The Abbot of Scone transferred his head to Scone church, and encased it in a costly shrine there is an entry in the accounts of the treasurer of James IV, October, 1503, " An offerand of 13 shillings to Sanct Fergus' heide in Scone". The churches of Wick, Glammis, and Lungley had St. Fergus as their patron. His festival is recorded in the Martyrology of Tallaght for the 8th of September but seems to have been observed in Scotland on the 18th of November.

St. Fergus, Bishop of Duleek

Died 778, mentioned by Duald MacFirbis, Annals of the Four Masters, Annals of Ulster.

St. Fergus, Bishop of Downpatrick

Died 583. He was sixth in descent from Coelbad, King of Erin. He built a church or monastery called Killmbain, identified by some as Killyban, Co. Down, and afterwards was consecrated bishop and ruled the cathedral church of Druimleithglais (Down). He was probably the first bishop of that see. His feast is kept on the 30th of March.

Ten saints of this name are mentioned in the martyology of Donegal.

C. MULCAHY

Feria

(Lat. for "free day").

A day on which the people, especially the slaves, were not obliged to work, and on which there were no court sessions. In ancient Roman times the feriae publicae, legal holidays, were either stativae, recurring regularly (e.g. the Saturnalia), conceptivae, i.e. movable, or imperativae, i.e. appointed for special occasions. When Christianity spread, the feriae were ordered for religious rest, to celebrate the feasts instituted for worship by the Church. The faithful were obliged on those days to attend Mass in their parish church; such assemblies gradually led to mercantile enterprise, partly from necessity and partly for the sake of convenience. This custom in time introduced those market gatherings which the Germans call Messen, and the English call fairs. They were fixed on saints' days (e.g. St. Barr's fair, St. Germanus's fair, St. Wenn's fair, etc.)

Today the term feria is used to denote the days of the week with the exception of Sunday and Saturday. Various reasons are given for this terminology. The Roman Breviary, in the sixth lesson for 31 Dec., says that Pope St. Silvester ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. The early Christians reckoned the days after Easter in this fashion, but, since all the days of Easter week were holy days, they called Easter Monday, not the first day after Easter, but the second feria or feast day; and since every Sunday is the dies Dominica, a lesser Easter day, the custom prevailed to call each Monday a feria secunda, and so on for the rest of the week.

The ecclesiastical style of naming the week days was adopted by no nation except the Portuguese who alone use the terms Segunda Feria etc. The old use of the word feria, for feast day, is lost, except in the derivative feriatio, which is equivalent to our of obligation. Today those days are called ferial upon which no feast is celebrated. Feriae are either major or minor. The major, which must have at least a commemoration, even on the highest feasts, are the feriae of Advent and Lent, the Ember days, and the Monday of Rogation week; the others are called minor. Of the major feriae Ash Wednesday and the days of Holy Week are privileged so that their office must be taken, no matter what feast may occur.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Ferland

A French Canadian historian, b. at Montreal, 25 December, 1805; d. at Quebec, 11 January, 1865. He studied at the college of Nicolet and was ordained 1828. He ministered to country parishes until 1841, when he was made director of studies in the college of Nicolet. He became its superior in 1848. Being named a member of the council of the Bishop of Quebec, he took up his residence in that city, where he was also chaplain to the English garrison. From his college days he had devoted himself to the study of Canadian history; the numerous notes which he collected had made him one of the most learned men of the country. It was not, however, until he had reached the age of forty that he thought of writing a history of Canada. In 1853 he published his "Observations sur l' histoire ecclésiastique du Canada", a refutation and criticism of the work of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourburg; it was reprinted in France in 1854. In the latter year he published "Notes sur les régistres de Notre Dame de Québec", a second edition of which, revised and augmented appeared in the "Foyer canadien" for 1863. In 1855 he was appointed professor of Canadian history at the University of Laval (Quebec), and went at once to France to collect new documents to perfect him in his work. He returned in 1857, bringing with him valuable notes. The public courses which he delivered from 1858 to 1862 attracted large audiences, and his lectures, printed as "Cours d' Histoire du Canada", established Ferland's reputation. The first volume appeared in 1861; the second was not published till after the author's death in 1865. This work, written in a style at once simple and exact, is considered authoritative by competent judges. It is, however, incomplete, ending as it does with the conquest of Canada by the English (1759). Ferland aimed above all at establishing the actual facts of history. He desired also to make known the work of the Catholic missions. His judgments are correct and reliable. Ferland also published in the "Soirées Canadiennes" of 1863 the "Journal d'un voyage sur les côtes de la Gaspésie", and in "Littérature Canadienne" for 1863 an "Etude sur le Labrador", which had previously appeared in the "Annales de l'Association pour la Propagation de la Foi". For the "Foyer Canadien" of 1863 he wrote a "Vie de Mgr Plessis", Bishop of Quebec, translated later into English.

J. EDMOND ROY

Archdiocese of Fermo

(FIRMANA).

In the province of Ascoli Piceno (Central Italy). The great antiquity of the episcopal city is attested by the remains of its cyclopean walls. It was the site of a Roman colony, established in 264 B.C., consisting of 6000 men. With the Pentapolis it passed in the eighth century under the authority of the Holy See and underwent thenceforth the vicissitudes of the March of Ancona. Under the predecessors of Honorius III the bishops of city became the counts, and later princes, of Fermo. In the contest between the Hohenstaufen and the papacy, Fermo was several times besieged and captured; in 1176 by Archbishop Christian of Mainz, in 1192 by Henry Vl, in 1208 by Marcuald, Duke of Ravenna, in 1241 by Frederick 11, in 1245 by Manfred. After this it was governed by different lords, who ruled as more or less legitimate vassals of the Holy See, e.g. the Monteverdi, Giovanni Visconti, and Francesco Storza (banished 1446), Oliverotto Uffreducci (murdered in 1503 by Caesar Borgia), who was succeeded by his son Ludovico, killed at the battle of Monto Giorgio in 1520, when Fermo became again directly subjected to the Holy See. Boniface VIII (1204-1303) established a university there. Fermo is the birth place of the celebrated poet, Annibale Caro.

Local legend attributes the first preaching of the Gospel at Fermo to Sts. Apollinarius and Maro. The martyrdom of the bishop, St. Alexander, with seventy companions, is placed in the persecution of Decius (250), and the martyrdom of St. Philip under Aurelian (270-75). Among the noteworthy bishops are: Passinus, the recipient of four letters from Gregory III; Cardinal Domenico Caspranica (1426): Sigismondo Zanettini (1584), under whom Fermo was made the seat of an archdiocese; Giambattista Rinuccini, nuncio in Ireland; and Alessandro Borgia. The suffragans of Fermo are Macerata-Tolentino, Montalto, Ripatransone, and San Severino. The archdiocese has (1908) a population of 18,000; 117 parishes; 368 secular priests and 86 regular; 2 male and 5 female educational institutions; 6 religious houses of men and 50 of women; and a Catholic weekly, the "Voce delle Marche".

U. BENIGNI

Antonio Fernández

A Jesuit missionary; b. at Lisbon, c. 1569; d. at Goa, 12 November, 1642. About 1602 he was sent to India, whence two years later he went to Abyssinia, where he soon won favour with King Melek Seghed. This monarch, converted to the Faith in 1622, after the arrival of the Latin patriarch, for whom he had petitioned the Holy See, publcly acknowledged the primacy of the Roman See and constituted Catholicism the State religion (1626). For a time innumerable conversions were made, the monarch in his zeal resorting even to compulsory measures. The emperor's son, however, took sides with the schismatics, headed a rebellion, seized his father's throne, and reinstalled the former faith proscribing the Catholic religion under the penalty of death. The missionaries, on their expulsion, found a temporary protector in one of the petty princes of the country, by whom, however, they were soon abandoned. Those who reached the port of Massowah were held for a ransom. Father Fernández, then over eighty years of age, was one of those detained as hostage, but a younger companion persuaded the pasha to substitute him, and Father Fernández was allowed to return to India, where he ended his days. On his missions for the king, Father Fernández had traversed vast tracts of hitherto unexplored territory. He translated various liturgical books into Ethiopian, and was the author of ascetical and polemical works against the heresies prevalent in Ethiopia.

F.M. RUDGE

Juan Fernández

A Jesuit lay brother and missionary; b. at Cordova; d. 12 June, 1567, in Japan. In a letter from Malacca, dated 20 June, 1549, St. Francis Xavier begs the prayers of the Goa brethren for those about to start on the Japanese mission mentioning among them Juan Fernández, a lay brother. On their arrival in Japan Juan rendered active service in the work of evangelizing. In September, 1550, he accompanied St. Francis to Firando (Hirado), thence to Amanguchi (Yamaguchi), and on to Miako (Saikio) a difficult journey, from which they returned to Amanguchi, where he was left with Father Cosmo Torres in charge of the Christians, when Francis started for China. There is still in the records of the Jesuit college at Coimbra a lengthy document professed to be the translation of an account rendered St. Francis by Ferndndez of a controversy with the Japanese on such questions as the nature of God, creation, the nature and immortality of the soul. The success of Brother Fernández on this occasion in refuting his Japanese adversaries resulted in the ill will of the bonzes, who stirred up a rebellion against the local prince, who had become a Christian. The missionaries were concealed by the wife of one of the nobles until they were able to resume their work of preaching. St. Francis says in one of his letters: "Joann Fernández though a simple layman, is most useful on account of the fluency of his acquaintance with the Japanese language and of the aptness and clearness with which he translates whatever Father Cosmo suggests to him." His humility under insults impressed all and on one occasion resulted in the conversion of a brilliant young Japanese doctor, who later became a Jesuit and one of the shining lights in the Japanese Church. Brother Fernández compiled the first Japanese grammar and lexicon.

F.M. RUDGE

Diego Fernández de Palencia

A Spanish conqueror and historian; b. at Palencia in the early part of the sixteenth century. He took up a military career, and went to Peru shortly after the conquest (about 1545). In 1553 and 1554 he took part in the civil struggle among the Spaniards, fighting under the banner of Alonso de Alvarado, Captain-General of Los Charcos, against the rebel Francisco Hernández de Giron. In 1555 Hurtado de Mendoza, Marquess of Canete, came to Peru as viceroy, and charged Fernández to write a history of the troubles in which he had just taken part. He then began his history of Peru, and later, when he had returned to Spain, upon the suggestion of Sandoval, President of the Council of the Indies, Fernández enlarged the scope of his work, and added to it a first part, dealing with the movements of Pizarro and his followers. The whole work was published under the title "Primera y segunda parte de la Historia del Peru (Seville, 1571). Having taken part in many of the events, and known the men who figured in most of the scenes which he describes, Fernández may be regarded as a historian whose testimony is worth consideration. Garcilaso de la Vega, the Peruvian, who quotes long passages from Fernández, fiercely attacks his story and accuses him of partiality and of animosity against certain personages. Whatever the reason may have been, however, possibly because of the truth of the story, the fact is, the Council of the Indies prohibited the printing and sale of the book in the provinces under its jurisdiction. A perusal of the book conveys the impression that Fernández was a man of sound judgment, who set down the fact only after a thorough investigation. The reproaches of the Inca historian may, therefore, be regarded as without foundation.

VENTURA FUENTES

Ferns

DIOCESE OF FERNS (FERNENSIS).

Diocese in the province of Leinster (Ireland), suffragan of Dublin. It was founded by St. Aedan, whose name is popularly known as Moaedhog, or "My dear little Aedh", in 598. Subsequently, St. Aedan was given a quasi-supremacy over the other bishops of Leinster, with the title of Ard-Escop or chief bishop, on which account he and some of his successors have been regarded as having archiepiscopal powers. The old annalists style the see Fearna-mor Maedhog, that is "the great plain of the alder trees of St. Moedhog. Even yet Moedhog (Mogue) -- the Irish endearing form of Aedan -- is a familiar Christian name in the diocese, while it is also perpetuted Tubbermogue, Bovlavogue, Cromogue, Island (Breacc Maedoig) are seen in the National Museum, Dublin. Many of his successors find a place in Irish martyrologies, including St. Mochua, St. Moling and St. Cillene. Of these the most famous is St. Moling, who died 13 May, 697. His book-shrine is among the greatest art treasures of Ireland, and his "well" is still visited, but he is best known as patron of St. Mullins (Teach Moling) County Carlow. The ancient monastery of Ferns included a number of cells, or oratories, and the cathedral was built in the Irish style. At present the remains of the abbey (refounded for Austin Canons, in 1160, by Dermot MaeMurrough) include a round tower, about seventy-five feet high in two stories, the lower of which is quadrangular, and the upper polygonal. Close by is the Holy Well of St. Mogue.

Ferns was raided by the Scandinavians in 834, 836, 839, 842, 917, 920, 928, and 930, and was burned in 937. St. Peter's Church, Ferns, dates from about the year 1060, and is of the Hiberno-Romanesque style, having been built by Bishop O'Lynam, who died in 1062. The bishops were indifferently styled as of Ferns, Hy Kinsellagh, or Wexford; thus, Maeleoin O'Donegan (d. 1125) is called "Bishop of Wexford", while Bishop O'Cathan (d. 1135) is named "Archbishop of Hy Kinsellagh". This was by reason of the fact that the boundaries of the diocese are coextensive with the territory of Hy Kinsellagh, on which account Ferns includes County Wexford with small portions of Wicklow and Carlow. Dermot MacMurrough, King of Leinster, burned the city of Ferns in 1166, "for fear that the Connacht men would destroy his castle and his house", and, three years later, he brought over a pioneer force of Welshmen. He died in 1171, and, at his own request, was buried "near the shrines of St. Maedhog and St. Moling". The same year Henry II of England landed in Ireland, where he remained for six months.

Ailbe O'Molloy, a Cistercian, who ruled from 1185 to 1222, was the last Irish bishop in the pre-Reformation history of Ferns. He attended the Fourth General Council of Lateran (1215) and, on his return, formed a cathedral chapter. His successor, Bishop St. John, was granted by Henry III (6 July, 1226) a weekly market at Ferns and an annual fair, also a weekly market at Enniscorthy. This bishop (8 April, 1227) assigned the manor of Enniscorthy to Philip de Prendergast, who built a castle, still in excellent preservation. In exchange, he acquired six plough-lands forever for the See of Ferns. He held a synod at Selskar (St. Sepulchre) Priory, Wexford (8 September, 1240). The appointment of a dean was confirmed by Clement IV (23 August. 1265). Bishop St. John rebuilt the cathedral of Ferns, which from recent discoveries seems to have been 180 feet in length, with a crypt. A fine stone statue of St. Aedan, evidently early Norman work, is still preserved. In 1346 the castle of Ferns was made a royal appanage, and constables were appointed by the Crown, but it was recovered by Art MacMurrough in 1386. Patrick Barret, who ruled from 1400 to 1415, removed the episcopal chair of Ferns to New Ross, and made St. Mary's his catherdal. His successor, Robert Whitty, had an episcopate of forty years, dying in February, 1458. Under John Purcell (1459-1479), Franciscan friars acquired a foundation in Enniscorthy, which was dedicated 18 October, 1460. Lawrence Neville (1479-1503) attended a provincial council at Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, on 5 March, 1495. His successor, Edmund Comerford, died in 1509, whereupon Nicholas Comyn was elected. Bishop Comyn resided at Fethard Castle, and assisted at the provincial councils of 1512 and 1518. He was transferred to Waterford and Lismore in 1519, and was replaced by John Purcell, whose troubled episcopate ended on 20 July, 1539. Though schismatically eonsecrated, Alexander Devereux was rehabilitated under Queen Mary as Bishop of Ferns, and died at Fethard Castle on 6 July, 1566 -- the last pre-Reformation bishop. Peter Power was appointed his successor in 1582, but the temporalities of the see were held by John Devereux. Bishop Power died a confessor, in exile, 15 December, 1588. Owing to the disturbed state of the diocese and the lack of revenue no bishop was provided till 19 April, 1624, but meantime Father Daniel O'Drohan, who had to adopt the alias of "James Walshe", acted as vicar Apostolic (1606-1624). John Roche was succeeded by another John Roche, 6 February, 1644, who never entered on possession, the see being administered by William Devereux from 1636 to 1644. Dr. Devereux was an able administrator at a trying period, and he wrote an English catechism, which was used in the diocese until a few years ago. Nicholas French was made Bishop of Ferns 15 September, 1644, and died in exile at Ghent, 23 August, 1679. His episcopate was a remarkable one, and he himself was a most distinguished prelate. Bishop Wadding (1678-1691) wrote some charming Christmas carols, which are still sung in Wexford. His successors, Michael Rossiter (1695-1709), John Verdon (1709-1729), and the Franciscan Ambrose O'Callaghan (1729-1744), experienced the full brunt of the penal laws. Nicholas Sweetman (1745-1786) was twice imprisoned on suspicion of "disloyalty", while James Caulfield (1786-1814) was destined to outlive the "rebellion" of '98. One of the Ferns priests Father James Dixon, who was transported as a "felon", was the first Prefect Apostolic of Australia. All the post-Reformation bishops lived mostly at Wexford until 1809, in which year Dr. Ryan, coadjutor bishop, commenced the building of a cathedral in Enniscorthy, which had been assigned him as a mensal parish. As Bishop Caulfield was an invalid from the year 1809 the diocese was administered by Dr. Ryan, who, with the permission of the Holy See, transferred the episcopal residence to Enniscorthy. Bishop Ryan died 9 March, 1819, and was buried in the cathedral. His successor, James Keating (1819-1849), ruled for thirty years, and commenced building the present cathedral, designed by Pugin. Myles Murphy (1850-1856) and Thomas Furlong (1857-1875) did much for the diocese, while Michael Warren (1875-1884) is still lovingly remembered.

From an interesting Relatio forwarded to the Propaganda by Bishop Caulfield in 1796, the Diocese of Ferns is described as 38 miles in length and 20 in breadth, with eight borough towns, and a chapter of nineteen members. In pre-Reformation days it had 143 parishes; 17 monasteries of Canons Regular of St. Augustine; 3 priories of Knights Templars; 2 Cistercian abbeys; 3 Franciscan friaries; 2 Austin friaries; 1 Carmelite friary, and 1 Benedictine priory. It never had a nunnery nor a Dominican friary. (The Jesuits had a flourishing college in New Ross in 1675.) The population was 120,000, of which 114,000 were Catholics, and there were 80 priests, including regulars. There were 36 parishes, many of which had no curates.

At present (1909), the population is 108,750, of which 99,000 are Catholics. There are 41 parishes, two of which (Wexford and Enniscorthy) are mensal. The parish priests are 39 and the curates are 66, while the churches number 92. The religious orders include Franciscans (one house), Augustinians (two houses), and Benedietines (one house). The total clergy are 140. In addition, there are 14 convents for religious women, and a House of Missions (Superior Father John Rossiter), as also 6 Christian Brothers schools, diocesan college, a Benedictine college, and several good schools for female pupils. Enniscorthy cathedral was not completed until 1875, and the interior not completely finished till 1908. Most Rev. Dr. James Browne was consecrated Bishop of Ferns 14 September, 1884. He was born at Mayglass, County Wexford in 1842, finished his studies at Maynooth College, where he was ordained in 1865, and served for nineteen years as curate and parish priest with conspicuous ability.

COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hib. (Louvain, 1648); BRENAN Eccl. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1840); ROTHE, Analecta, ed. MORAN (Dublin. 1884); WARE, Bishops of Ireland, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1739); RENEHAN, Collections on Irish Church History, ed. MCCARTHY (Dublin, 1874), II; GRATTAN-FLOOD, Hist. of Enniscorthy (Enniscorthy, 1898); IDEM, The Episcopal City of Ferns in Irish Eccl. Record, II, no. 358, IV, no. 368, VI, no. 380, BASSET, Wexford (Dublin, 1885).

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Ferrara

Archdiocese of Ferrara (Ferrariensis).

Archdiocese immediately subject to the Holy See. The city, which is the capital of the similarly named province, stands on the banks of the Po di Volano, where it branches off to form the Po di Primaro, in the heart of a rich agricultural district. The origin of Ferrara is doubtful. No mention is made of it before the eighth century. Until the tenth century it followed the fortunes of Ravenna. In 986 it was given as a papal fief to Tedaldo, Count of Canossa, the grandfather of Countess Matilda against whom it rebelled in 1101. From 1115 it was directly under the pope, though often claimed by the emperors. During this period arose the commune of Ferrara. Gradually the Salinguerra family became all-powerful in the city. They were expelled in 1208 for their fidelity to the emperor, whereupon the citizens offered the governorship to Azzo VI d'Este, whose successors kept it, as lieges of the pope, until 1598, with the exception of the brief period from 1313 to 1317, when it was leased to the King of Sicily for an annual tribute. Alfonso I d'Este, hoping to cast off the overlordship of the pope, kept up relations with Louis XII of France long after the League of Cambrai (1508) had been dissolved. In 1510 Julius II attempted in person to bring him back to a sense of duty, but was not successful. In 1519 Leo X tried to capture the town by surprise, but he too failed; in 1522, however, Alfonso of his own accord made his peace with Adrian VI. In 1597 Alfonso II died without issue and named his cousin Cesare as his heir. Clement VIII refused to recognize him and sent to Ferrara his own nephew, Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, who in 1598 brought the town directly under papal rule. In 1796 it was occupied by the French, and became the chief town of the Bas-Po. In 1815 it was given back to the Holy See, which governed it by a legate with the aid of an Austrian garrison. In 1831 it proclaimed a provisional government, but the Austrian troops restored the previous civil conditions, which lasted until 1859, when the territory was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy.

The dukes of Ferrara, especially Alfonso I (1505-1534) and Alfonso II (1559-1597), were generous patrons of literature and the arts. At their court lived Tasso, Ariosto, Boiardo, V. Strozzi, G. B. Guarini, the historian Guido Bentivoglio, and others. It counted many artists of renown, whose works adorn even yet the churches and palaces of the city, e. g. the ducal palace, the Schifanoia, Diamanti, Rovella, Scrofa-Calcagnini, and other palaces. The more famous among the painters were Benvenuto Tisi (Garofalo), Ercole Grandi, Ippolito Scarsello, the brothers Dossi, and Girolamo da Carpi. Alfonso Cittadella, the sculptor, left immortal works in the duomo, or cathedral (Christ and the Apostles), and in San Giovanni (Madonna). Churches of note are the cathedral, SS. Benedetto and Francesco, San Domenico (with its beautiful carved choir stalls of the fourteenth century). The most famous work of ecclesiastical architecture is the magnificent Certosa. The university was founded in 1391 by Boniface IX. Ferrara was the birthplace of Savonarola and of the great theologian, Silvestro di Ferrara, both Dominicans.

The earliest bishop of certain date is Constantine, present at Rome in 861; St. Maurelius (patron of the city) must have lived before this time. Some think that the bishops of Ferrara are the successors to those of Vigonza (the ancient Vicuhabentia). Other bishops of note are Filippo Fontana (1243), to whom Innocent IV entrusted the task of inducing the German princes to depose Frederick II; Blessed Alberto Pandoni (1261) and Blessed Giovanni di Tossignano (1431); the two Ippolito d'Este (1520 and 1550) and Luigi d'Este (1553), all three munificent patrons of learning and the arts; Alfonso Rossetti (1563), Paolo Leoni (1579), Giovanni Fontana (1590), and Lorenzo Magalotti (1628), all four of whom eagerly supported the reforms of the Council of Trent; finally, the saintly Cardinal Carlo Odescalchi (1823). Up to 1717 the Archbishop of Ravenna claimed metropolitan rights over Ferrara; in 1735 Clement XII raised the see to archiepiscopal rank, without suffragans. It has 89 parishes and numbers 130,752 souls; there are two educational institutions for boys and six for girls, nine religious houses of men and nineteen of women.

COUNCIL OF FERRARA

When Saloniki (Thessalonica) fell into the hands of the Turks (1429) the Emperor John Palæologus approached Martin V, Eugene IV, and the Council of Basle to secure help against the Turks and to convoke a council for the reunion of the two Churches, as the only means of efficaciously resisting Islam. At first it was proposed to hold the council in some seaport town of Italy; then Constantinople was suggested. The members of the Council of Basle held out for Basle or Avignon. Finally (18 September, 1437), Eugene IV decided that the council would be held at Ferrara, that city being acceptable to the Greeks. The council was opened 8 January, 1438, by Cardinal Nicolò Albergati, and the pope attended on 27 January. The synodal officers were divided into three classes: (1) the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops; (2) the abbots and prelates; (3) doctors of theology and canon law. Before the arrival of the Greeks, proclamation was made that all further action by the Council of Basle as such would be null and void. The Greeks, i. e. the emperor with a train of archbishops, bishops, and learned men (700 in all), landed at Venice 8 February and were cordially received and welcomed in the pope's name by Ambrogio Traversari, the General of the Camaldolese. On 4 March the emperor entered Ferrara. The Greek bishops came a little later. Questions of precedence and ceremonial caused no small difficulty. For preparatory discussions on all controverted points a committee of ten from either side was appointed. Among them were Marcus Eugenicus, Archbishop of Ephesus; Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicæa; Balsamon; Siropolos and others, for the Greeks; while Cardinals Giuliano Cesarini and Nicolò Albergati, Giovanni Turrecremata, and others represented the Latins. The Greek Emperor prevented a discussion on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and on the use of leavened bread. For months the only thing discussed or written about was the ecclesiastic teaching on purgatory. The uncertainty of the Greeks on this head was the cause of the delay. The emperor's object was to bring about a general union without any concessions on the part of the Greeks in matters of doctrine. Everybody deplored the delay, and a few of the Greeks, among them Marcus Eugenicus, attempted to depart secretly, but they were obliged to return.

The sessions began 8 October, and from the opening of the third session the question of the Procession of the Holy Spirit was constantly before the council. Marcus Eugenicus blamed the Latins for having added the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed despite the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus (431). The chief speakers on behalf of the Latins were Andrew, Bishop of Rhodes, and Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, who pointed out that the addition was dogmatically correct and not at all contrary to the prohibition of the Council of Ephesus, nor to the teaching of the Greek Fathers. Bessarion admitted the orthodoxy of the "Filioque" teaching, but maintained it ought not to have been added to the Creed. Twelve sessions were (III-XV) taken up with this controversy. On both sides many saw no hope of an agreement, and once more many Greeks were eager to return home. Finally the emperor permitted his followers to proceed to the discussion of the orthodoxy of the "Filioque". In the meantime the people of Florence had invited the pope to accept for himself and the council the hospitality of their city. They hoped in this way to reap great financial profit. The offer was accompanied by a large gift of money. Eugene IV, already at a loss for funds and obliged to furnish hospitality and money to the Greeks (who had come to Italy in the pope's own fleet), gladly accepted the offer of the Florentines. The Greeks on their part agreed to the change. The council thus quitted Ferrara without having accomplished anything, principally because the emperor and Marcus Eugenicus did not wish to reach an agreement in matters of doctrine. (See Council of Florence.)

ARCHDIOCESE.--CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1846), IV, 9-11, 24-226; FRIZZI, Memorie per la Storia di Ferrara (Ferrara, 1791); AGNELLI, Ferrara in Italia Artistica (Bergamo, 1902).

COUNCIL.--MANSI, Coll. Conc., XXIX; HARDOUIN, Coll. Conc., IX; HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte (2nd ed.), VII; CECCONI, Studi storici sul concilio di Firenze (Florence, 1869). U. BENIGNI.

Gaudenzio Ferrari

An Italian painter and the greatest master of the Piedmontese School, b. at Valduggia, near Novara. Italy, c. 1470: d. at Milan, 31 January, 1546. His work is vast but poorly known. He seems never to have left his beloved Piedmont or Lombardy save perhaps on one occasion. He had seen Leonardo at work in Milan (1490-98), and learned from him lessons in expression and in modeling. But he owed more to his compatriots in the North: to Bramante and Bramantino in architectural details, above all to Mantegna, whose frescoes of the "Life of St. James" inspired more than one paintings at Varallo.

Nothing is more uncertain than the history of this great man. His earliest known works belong to the years 1508 and 1511; at that time he was about forty years of age. He would seem to have been formed in the good old Milanese school of such men as Borgognone, Zenale, and Butinone, which kept aloof from the brilliant fashion in art favoured by the court of the Sforzas, and which prolonged the fifteenth century with its archaisms of expression. Gaudenzio, this youngest and frankest of this group, never fell under the influence of Leonardo, and hence it is that on one point he always held out against the new spirit; he would never daily with the paganism or rationalism of Renaissance art. He was as passionately naturalistic as any painter of his time, before all else, however, he was a Christian artist. He is the only truly religious master of the Italian Renaissance, and this trait it is which makes him stand out in any age where faith and single-mindedness were gradually disappearing, as a man of another country, almost of another time.

When we consider the works of Gaudenzio, more especially his earlier ones, in the light of the fact that the district in which he was born was in the direct line of communication between North and South; and reflect that what might be termed the "art traffic" between Germany and Italy was very great in his time, we are forced to recognize that German influence played a considerable part in the development of his genius, in so far at least as his mind was amenable to external stimuli. He is, in fact, the most German of the Italian painters. In the heart of a school where art was becoming more and more aristocratic, he remained the people's painter. In this respect his personality stands out so boldly amongst the Itatian painters of the time that it seems natural to infer that Gaudenzio in his youth travelled to the banks of the Rhine, and bathed long and deep in its mystic atmosphere.

Like the Gothic masters, he is perhaps the only sixteenth-century painter who worked exclusively for churches or convents. He is the only one in Italy who painted lengthy sacred dramas and legends from the lives of the saints: a "Passion" at Varallo; a "Life of the Virgin", and a "Life of St. Magdalen", at Vercelli; and at times, after the fashion of the cinquecento, he grouped many different episodes in one scene, at the expense of unity in composition, till they resembled the mysteries, and might be styled "sectional paintings". He was not aiming at art, but at edification. Hence arose a certain negligence of form and a carelessness of execution still more pronounced. The "Carrying of the Cross" at Cannobio, the "Calvary" at Vercelli, the "Deposition" at Turin, works of great power in many ways, and unequalled at the time in Italy for pathos and feeling, are somehow wanting in proportion, and give one the impression that the conventional grouping has been departed from. The soul, being filled as it were with its object, as overpowered by the emotions; and the intellect confesses its inability to synthesize the images which rise tumultuously from an over excited sensibility. Another consequence of this peculiarity of mental conformation is, perhaps, the abuse of the materials at his disposal Gaudenzio never refrained from using doubtful methods, such as ornaments in relief, the use of gilded stucco worked into harness, armour, into the aureolas, etc. And to heighten the effect he does not even hesitate to make certain figures stand out in real, palpable relief; is fact some of his frescoes are as much sculpture as they are painting, by reason of this practice.

His history must always remain incomplete until we get further enlightenment concerning that strange movement of the Pietist preachers, which ended in establishing (1487-93) a great Franciscan centre on the Sacro Monte de Varallo. It was in this retreat that Gaudenzio spent the years which saw his genius come to full maturity; it was there he left his greatest works, his "Life of Christ" of 1513, in twenty-one frescoes at Santa Maria delle Grazie, and other works on the Sacro Monte dating between 1523 and 1528. It was there that the combined use of painting and sculpture produced a most curious result. Fresco is only used as an ornament, a sort of background to a scene presenting a tableau vivant of figures in terra-cotta. Some of the groups embrace no less than thirty figures. Forty chapels bring out in this way the principal scenes in the drama of the Incarnation, Gaudenzio is responsible for the chapels of the Magi, the Pietà, and the Calvary.

In his subsequent works, at Vercelli (1530-34) and at Saronno (in the cupola of Santa Maria dei Miracoli, 1535), the influence of Correggio is furiously blended with the above-mentioned German leanings. The freshness and vigour of his inspiration remain untouched in all their homely yet stern grace. The "Assumption" at Vercelli is perhaps the greatest lyric in Italian art; this lyric quality in his painting is still more intense in the wonderful "Glory of Angels", in the cupola at Saronno, the most enthusiastic and jubilant symphony that any art has ever produced. In all Correggio's art there is nothing more charming than the exquisite sentiment and tender rusticity of "The Flight into Egypt", in the cathedral of Como. The artist's latest works were those he executed at Milan, whither he retired in 1536. In these paintings, the creations of a man already seventy years of age, the vehemence of feeling sometimes becomes almost savage, the presentation of his ideas abrupt and apocalyptic. His method becomes colossal and more and more careless, but still in the "Passion" at Santa Maria delle Grazie (1542) we cannot fail to trace the hand of a master.

Gaudenzio was married at least twice. By his first marriage a son was born to him in 1509 and a daughter in 1512. He married, in 1528, Maria Mattia della Foppa who died about 1540, shortly after the death of his son. These sorrows doubtless affected the character of his later works. Gaudenzio's immediate influence was scarcely appreciable. His pupils Lanino and Della Cerva are extremely mediocre. Nevertheless when the day of Venice's triumph came with Tintoretto, and Bologna's with the Carraccis in the counter-reform movement, it was the art of Gaudenzio Ferrari that triumphed in them. The blend of Northern and Latin genius in his work, so characteristic of the artists of the Po valley, was carried into the ateliers of Bologna by Dionysius Calvaert. It became the fashion, displacing, as it was bound to do, the intellectual barrenness and artistic exoticism of the Florentine School.

LOUIS GILLET

Lucius Ferraris

An eighteenth-century canonist of the Franciscan Order. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, but he was born at Solero, near Alessandria in Northern Italy. He was also professor, provincial of his order, and consultor of the Holy Office. It would seem he died before 1763. He is the author of the "Prompta Bibliotheca canonica, juridica, moralis, theologica, necnon ascetica, polemica, rubricistica, historica", a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge. The first edition of this work appeared at Bologna, in 1746. A second edition, much enlarged, also a third, were published by the author himself. The fourth edition, dating from 1763 seems to have been published after his death. This, like those which followed it, contains the additions which the author had made to the second edition under the title of additiones auctoris, and also other enlargements (additiones ex aliena manu) inserted in their respective places in the body of the work (and no longer in the appendix as in the former editions) and supplements. The various editions thus differ from each of her. The most recent are: that of the Benedictines (Naples, 1844-55), reproduced by Migne (Paris, 1861-1863), and an edition published at Paris 1884. A new edition was published at Rome in 1899 at the press of the Propaganda in eight volumes, with a volume of supplements, edited by the Jesuit, Bucceroni, containing several dissertations and the recent and important documents of the Holy See. This supplement serves to keep up to date the work of Ferraris, which will ever remain a precious mine of information, although it is sometimes possible to reproach the author with laxism.

A. VAN HOVE

Vicente Ferre

Theologian, b. at Valencia, Spain; d. at Salamanca in 1682. He entered the Dominican Order at Salamanca, where he pursued his studies in the Dominican College of St. Stephen. After teaching in several houses of study of his order in Spain, he was called from Burgos to Rome, where for eighteen years he was regens primarius of the Dominican College of St Thomas ad Minervam. From Rome he went to Salamanca, where he became prior of the convent and, after three years, regent of studies. In his own time he was recognized as one of the best Thomists of the seventeenth century, and posterity acknowledges that ha published works possess extraordinary fullness, clearness, and order. He died while publishing his commentaries on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. We have two folio volumes on the Secunda Secundae, covering the treatises of faith, hope, and charity, and the opposite vices. Published at Rome in 1669; three on the Prima, published at Salamanca, in 1675, 1676, and 1678 respectively; and three on the Prima Seeundae, down to Q. cxiii, published at Salamanca, 1679, 1681, and 1690. His confrère Pérez à Lerma added to Q. cxiv the treatise on merit.

QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praed., II, 696; ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hisp. Nova (Madrid, 1783), II, 261.

A.L. MCMAHON

Antonio Ferreira

A poet, important both for his lyric and his dramatic compositions, b. at Lisbon, Portugal, in 1528; d. there of the plague in 1569. He studied law at Coimbra, where, however, he gave no less ateention to belles-letteres than to legal codes, ardently reading the poetry of classic antiquity. Successful in his chosen profession, he became a judge of the Supreme Court at Lisbon, and enjoyed close relations with eminent personages of the court of John III. Ferreira stands apart from the great majority of the Portuguese poets of his time in that he never used Spanish, but wrote constantly in his native language. Yet he is to be classed with the reformers of literary taste, for, like Sâ de Miranda, he abandoned the old native forms to further the movement of the Renaissance. He manifested a decided interest in the Italian lyric measures, already given some elaboration by Sâ de Miranda, and displayed some skill in the use of the hendecasyllable. The sonnet, the elegy, the idyll, the verse epistle, the ode, and kindred forms he cuitlvated with a certain felicity, revealing not only his study of the Italian Renaissance poets, but also a good acquaintance with the Greek and Latin masters.

It is by his dramatic endeavours that he attained to greatest prominence, for his tragedy "Ines de Castro", in particular is regarded as one of the chief monuments of Portughese literature. He began his work on the drama while still a student at Coimbra, writing there for his own amusement his first comedy, "Bristo", dealing with the old classic theme of lost children and later agnitions, which was often utilized for the stage of the Renaissance and has been made familiar by Shakespeare. Much improvement in dramatic technique is evinced by his second comedy, "O. Cioso", which treats realistically the figure of a jealous husband. It is considered as the earliest character-comedy in modern Europe. Written in prose, it exhibits a clever use of dialogue and has really comical scenes. None of the compositions of Ferreira appeared in print during his lifetime and the first edition of his two comedies is that of 1622. On English translation of the "Cioso" made by Musgrave was published in 1825. His tragedy, "Inés de Casro", imitates in its form the models of ancient Greek literature, and shows ltalian influence in its use of blank verse, but it owes its suject-matter to native Portuguese history, concerning itself with the love of King Pedro for the beautiful for the Ines de Castro, an incident which has also been spendidly treated by Camões in his "Lusiades", and has furnished the theme for at least ten Portughese and four Spanish plays, and over a score of compositions in foreign languages. If tested by the requirements of the theatre, the play is doubtless far frorn perfect, but the purity of its style and diction ensures its popularity with its author's compatriots. It was rendered into English by Musgrave in 1826. The rather free Spanish version of 1577 was made on the basis of a manuscript copy of the Portughese original, for the first Portughese printed edition is of 1587.

J.D.M. FORD

Rafael Ferrer

A Spanish missionary and explorer; b. at Valencia, in 1570; d. at San José, Peru, in 1611. His father had destined him for a military career, but he entered the Society of Jesus, and in 1593 was sent to Quito, Ecuador. In 1601 he penetrated the territory of the Cofanis, a hostle tribe who had been a source of great trouble to the Spanish Government. Within three years the Indians of several villages were so civilized by the influence of religion that the surrounding country was open to colonists.

In 1605, at the command of the viceroy of Quito, Ferrer went among the. uncivilized tribes of the River Napo. He was well received by the Indians, and on this journey which lasted two and a half years, he travelled 3600 miles into the interior, bringing back with him a chart of the basin of the Napo, a map of the country he had explored, and an herbarium which he presented to the viceroy. He was appointed governor and chief magistrate of the Cofanis, and received the title of "Chief of the Missions of the Cofanis". After a period of rest at the mission he next journeyed northward from Quito through unexplored forests, and discovered a large lake and the River Pilcomago. In 1610 he returned to his labours among the Indians, bending his energies to the civilization ot the few tribes of the Cofanis who were not yet within the range of his influence. He met his death at the hands of the chief of one of these tribes, whom he had compelled to abandon polygamy. The murderer was slain in turn by his tribesmen, who were enraged on learning of his deed. An extract from Father Ferrer's account of his explorations was published by Fr. Detré in the "Lettres Edifiantes", and the same extract was also published by Father Bernard de Bologne in the "Bibliotheca Societatis Jesu", but the original manuscript was lost and has never been published in its entirety. Besides compiling his "Arte de la Lengua Cofana", Father Ferrer translated the catechism and selections from the Gospels for every Sunday in the year into the language of the Cofanis.

BLANCHE M. KELLY

Abbey of Ferrières

Situated in the Diocese of Orléans, department of Loiret, and arrondissement of Montargis. The Benedictine Abbey of Ferrières-en-Gâtinais has been most unfortunate from the view of historical science, having lost its archives, its charters, and everything which would aid in the reconstruction of its history. Thus legend and the existence of the abbey about the credulity have had full play. But it is interesting to encounter in the work of an obscure Benedictine of the eighteenth century, Dom Philippe Mazoyer, information perhaps the most accurate and circumspect obtainable. According to Dom Mazoyer there was formerly at Ferrières a chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin under the title Notre-Dame de Bethleem de Ferrières. With regard to the foundation of the abbey, he thinks it cannot be traced beyond the reign of Dagobert (628-38) and he rightly regards as false the Acts of St. Savinian and the charter of Clovis, dated 508, despite the favourable opinion of Dom Morin. Some have based conjectures on the antiquity of portions of the church of Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Ferrières, which they profess to trace back the sixth century, but this is completely disproved by archeological testimony. On the other hand the existence of the abbey about the year 630 seems certain, and rare documents, such as the diploma of Charles the Bald preserved in the archives of Orléans, bear witness to its prosperity. This prosperity reached its height in the time of the celebrated Loup (Lupus) of Ferrières (c. 850), when the abbey became a rather active literary centre. The library must have benefited thereby, but it shared the fate of the monastery, and is represented to-day by rare fragments. One of these, preserved at the Vatican library (Reg.1573) recalls the memory of St. Aldric (d. 836), Abbot of Ferrières before he become Archbishop of Sens. There is here also loosely arranged catalogue of some of the abbots of Ferrières between 887 and 987, which, imperfect though it is, serves to rectify and complete that of the "Gallia Christiana". Among the last names in the list of the abbots of Ferrières is that of Louis de Blanchefort, who in the fifteenth century almost entirely restored the abbey. Grievously tried during the war of religion, Ferrières disappeared with all the ancient abbeys at the time of the French Revolution. Its treasures and library were wasted and scattered. Today there are only to be seen some ruins of the ancient monastic buildings. At the time of the Concordat of 1802 and the ecclesiastical reorganization of France, Ferrières passed from the Archdiocese of Sens to the Diocese of Orléans.

H. LECLERCQ

Heinrich, Freiherr von Ferstel

Architect; with Hansen and Schmidt, the creator of modern Vienna; b. 7 July, 1828, at Vienna; d. at Grinzing, near Vienna, 14 July, 1883. His father was a bank-clerk. After wavering for some time between the different arts, all of which possessed a strong attraction for him, the talented youth finally decided on architecture which he studied at the Academy under Van der Null, Siccardsburg, and Rösner. After several years during which he was in disrepute because of his part in the Revolution, he entered the atelier of his uncle, Stache, where he worked at the votive altar for the chapel of St. Barbara in the cathedral of St. Stephen and co-operated in the restoration and construction of many castles, chiefly in Bohennia. Journeys of some length into Germany, Belgium, Holland, and England confirmed him in his tendency towards Romanticism. It was in Italy, however, where he was sent as a bursar in 1854, that he was converted to the Renaissance style of architecture. This was thenceforth his ideal, not because of its titanic grandeur, but because of its beauty and symmetrical harmony of proportion, realized pre-eminently in Bramante, his favourite master. He turned from the simplicity and restraint of the Late Renaissance to the use of polychromy by means of graffito decoration and terra-cotta. This device, adapted from the Early Renaissance and intended to convey a fuller sense of life, he employed later with marked success in the Austrian Museum.

While still in Italy he was awarded the prize in the competition for the votive church (Votivkirche) of Vienna (1855) over seventy-four contestants, for the most part celebrated architects. In the masterpiece of modern ecclesiastical architecture he produced a structure of marvellous symmetry designed along strong architectural principles, with a simple, well-defined ground plan, a harmonious correlation of details, and a sumptuous scheme of decoration (1856-79). After his death this edifice was proposed by Sykes as a model for the new Westminster cathedral in London. Another of Ferstel's monumental works belonging to the same period is the Austro-Hungarian bank in Vienna, in the style of the Early Italian Renaissance (1856-60). The expansion of the city of Vienna enabled Ferstel, with Eitelberger, to develop civic architecture along artistic lines (burgomaster's residence, stock exchange 1859). At the same time he had also the opportunity of putting his ideas into practice in a number of private dwellings and villas at Brunn and Vienna.

The more important buildings designed during his later years, passing over the churches at Schonau near Teplitz, really products of his earlier activity are the palace of Archduke Ludwig Victor, his winter palace at Klessheim, the palace of Prince Johahn Liechtenstein in the Rossau near Vienna, the palace of the Austro-Hungarian Lloyd's, at Triest, but above all the Austrian Museum (completed in 1871), a masterpiece of interior economy of space with its impsosing arcaded court. Next to his civic and ecclesiastical masterpieces comes the Vienna University, of masterly construction with wonderfully effective stairways (1871-84). Through a technical error his design for the Berlin Reichstag building received no award.

Ferstel is the most distinctively Viennese of all Viennese architects; able to give a structure beauty of design and harmony without prejudice to the purpose it was to subserve, and this because of his artistic versatility and inexhaustible imagination. These qualities also assured him success as a teacher, and were evident in his memoirs and numerous treatises, which are masterpieces of clearness. Special mention should be made those which appeared in Forster's architectural magazine. In 1866 Ferstel was appointed professor at the Polytechnic School, in 1871 chief goverment inspector of public works and in 1879 was raised to the rank of Freiherr. At the time of his death he was still in the full vigour of his strength.

JOSEPH SAUER

Joseph Fesch

Cardinal, b. at Ajaccio, Corsica, 3 January, 1763; d. at Rome, 13 May, 1839. He was the son of a captain of a Swiss regiment in the service of Genoa, studied at the seminary of Aix, was made archdeacon and provost of the chapter of Ajaccio before 1789, but was obliged to leave Corsica when his family sided with France against the English, who came to the island in answer to Paoli's summons. The young priest was half-brother to Letizia Ramolino, the mother of Napoleon and upon arriving in France he entered the commissariat department of the army; later, in 1795, became commissary of war under Bonaparte, then in command of the Armée d'Italie. When religious peace was reestablished, Fesch made a month's retreat under the direction of Emery, the superior of Saint-Sulpice and re-entered ecclesiastical life. During the Consulate he became canon of Bastia and helped to negotiate the Concordat of 1801; on 15 August, 1802, Caprara consecrated him Archbishop of Lyons, and in 1803 Pius VII created him cardinal.

On 4 April, 1803, Napoleon appointed Cardinal Fesch successor to Cacault as ambassador to Rome, giving him Chateaubriand for secretary. The early part of his sojourn in the Eternal City was noted for his differences with Chateaubriand and his efforts to have the Concordat extended to the Italian Republic. He prevailed upon Pius VII to go to Paris in person and crown Napoleon. This was Fesch's greatest achievement. He accompanied the pope to France and as grand almoner, blessed the marriage of Napoleon and Josephine before the coronation ceremony took place. By a decree issued in 1805, the missionary institutions of Saint-Lazare and Saint-Sulpice were placed under the direction of Cardinal Fesch, who, laden with this new responsibility, returned to Rome. In 1806, after the occupation of Ancona by French troops, and Napoleon's letter proclaiming himself Emperor of Rome, Alquier was named to succeed Fesch as ambassador to Rome. Returning to his archiepiscopal See of Lyons, the cardinal remained in close touch with his nephew's religious policy and strove, occasionally with success, to obviate certain irreparable mistakes. He accepted the coadjutorship to Dalberg, prince-primate, in the See of Ratisbon, but, in 1808, refused the emperor's offer of the Archbishopric of Paris, for which he could not have obtained canonical institution. Although powerless to prevent either the rupture between Napoleon and the pope in 1809 or the closing of the seminaries of Saint-Lazarre, Saint-Esprit, and the Missions Etrangeres, Fresch nevertheless managed to deter Napoleon from signing a decree relative to the Gallican Church. He consented to bless Napoleon's marriage with Marie-Louise, but, according the researches of Geoffrey de Grandmaison, he was not responsible to the same extent as the members of the diocesan officialité for the illegal annulment of the emperor's first marriage.

In 1809 and 1810 Fresch presided over the two ecclesiastical commissions charged with the question of canonical institution of bishops, but the proceedings were so conducted that neither commission adopted any schismatic resolutions. As its president, he opened the National Council od 1811, but at the very outset he took and also administered the oath (forma juramenti professionis fidei) required by the Bull "Injunctum nobis" of Pius IV; it was decided by eight votes out of eleven that the method of canonical institution could not altered independently of the pope. A message containing the assurance of the cardinal's loyalty, and addressed to the supreme pontiff, then in exile at Fontainebleau, caused the Fesch to incur the emperor's disfavour and to forfeit the subsidy of 150,000 florins which he had received as Dalberg's coadjutor. Under the Restoration and the Monarchy of July, Fesch lived at Rome, his Archdiocese of Lyons being in charge of an administrator. He died without again returning to France and left a splendid collection of pictures, a part of which was bequeathed to his epicopal city.

As a diplomat, Fesch sometimes employed questionable methods. His relationship to the emperor and his cardinalitical dignity often made his position a difficult one; at least he could never be accused of approving the violent measures resorted to by Napoleon. As Archbishop, he was largely instrumental in re-establishing the Brothers of Christian Doctrine and recalling the Jesuits, under the name of Pacanarists. The Archdiocese of Lyons is indebted to him for some eminently useful institutions. It must be admitted, moreover, that in his pastoral capacity Fesch took a genuine interest in the education of priests.

GEORGES GOYAU

Josef Fessler

Bishop of St. Polten in Austria and secretary of the Vatican Council; b. 2 December, 1813, at Lochau near Bregenz in the Vorarlberg; d. 25 April, 1872. His parents were peasants. He early showed great abilities. His classical studies were done at Feldkirch his philosophy at Innsbruck including a year of legal studies, and has theology at Brixen. He was ordained priest in 1837, and, after a year as master in a school at Innsbruck, studied for two more years in Vienna life then became professor of ecclesiastical history and canon law in the theological school at Brixen, 1841-52. He published at the quest of the Episcopal Conferenee of Wurzburg, in 1848, a useful little book "Ueber die Provincial-Concilien und Diöcesan-Synoden" (Innsbruck, 1849), and in 1850-1 the well-known "Institutiones Patrologiae quas ad frequentiorem utiliorem et faciliorem SS. Patrum lectionem promovendam concinnavit J. Fessler" (Innsbruck, 2 Vols. 8vo). This excellent work superseded the unfinished books of Möhler and Permaneder and was not surpassed by the subsequent works of Alzog and Nirschl. In its new edition by the late Prof. Jungmann of Louvain (Innsbruck, 1890-6), it is still of great value to the student, in spite of the newer information given by Bardenhewer. From 1856 to 1861 Fessler was professor of canon law in the University Of Vienna, after making special studies for six months at Rome. He was consecrated as assistant bishop to the bishop of Brixen, Dr. Gasser, on 31 March, 1862, and became his vicar-general for the Vorarlberg. On 23 Sept., 1864, he was named by the emperor Bishop of St. Polten, not far from Vienna. When at Rome in 1867 he was named assistant at the papal throne. In 1869 Pope Pius IX proposed Bishop Fessler to the Congregation for the direction of the coming Vatican Council as secretary to the council. The appointment was well received, the only objection being from Cardinal Caterini who thought the choice of an Austrian might make the other nations jealous. Bishop Fessler was informed of his appointment on 27 March, and as the pope wished him to come with all speed to Rome, he arrived there on 8 July, after hastily dispatching the business of his diocese. He had a pro-secretary and two assistants. It was certainly wise to choose a prelate whose vast and intimate acquaintance with the Fathers and with ecclesiastical history was equalled only by his thorough knowledge of canon law. He seems to have given universal satisfaction by his work as secretary, but the burden was a heavy one, and in spite of his excellent constitution his untiring labours were thought to have been the cause of his early death. Before the council he published an opportune work "Das letzte und das nächste allgemeine Konsil" (Freiburg, 1869) and after the council he replied in a masterly brochure to the attack on the council by Dr. Schulte, professor of canon law and German law at Prague. Dr. Schulte's pamphlet on the power of the Roman popes over princes, countries, peoples, and individuals, in the light of their acts since the reign of Gregory VII, was very similar in character to the Vaticanism pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, and rested on just the same fundamental misunderstanding of the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council. The Prussian Government promptly appointed Dr. Schute to a professorship at Bonn, while it imprisoned Catholic priests and bishops. Fessler's reply, "Die wahre und die falsche Unfehlbarkeit der Päpste" (Vienna, 1871), was translated into French by Cosquin editor of "Le Français", and into English by Father Ambrose St. John, of the Birmingham Oratory (The True and False Infallibility of the Popes, London, 1875). It is still an exceedingly valuable explanation of the true doctrine of Infallibility as taught by the great Italian "Ultramontane" theologians, such as Bellarmine in the sixteenth century, P. Ballerini in the eighteenth, and Perrone in the nineteenth. But it was difficult for those who had been fighting against the definition to realize that the Infallibilists "had wanted no more than this. Bishop Hefele of Rottenburg, who had strongly opposed the definition and afterwards loyally accepted it, said he entirely agree with the moderate view taken by bishop Fessler, but doubted whether such views would be accepted as sound in Rome. It was clear, one would have thought, that the secretary of the council was likely to know; and the hesitations of the pious and learned Hefele were removed by the warm Brief of approbation which Pius IX addressed to the author.

ANTON ERDINGER, Dr. Joseph Fessler, Bischof v. St. Polten, ein Lebensbild (Brixen, 1874); MITTERRUTZNER in Kirchenlexikon; GRANDERATH AND KIRCH, Geschichte des Vatiannischen Konzils (Freiburg im Br., 2 vols., 1903).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Domenico Feti

Feti, Domenico, an Italian painter; born at Rome, 1589; died at Venice, 1624. He was a pupil of Cigoli (Ludovico Cardi, 1559-1613), or at least was much influenced by this master during his sojourn in Rome. >From the end of the sixteenth century Rome again became what she had ceased to be after the sack of 1527, the metropolis of the beautiful. The jubilee of the year 1600 marked the triumph of the papacy. Art, seeking its pole now at Parma, now at Venice, now at Bologna, turning towards Rome, concentrated itself there. Crowds of artists flocked thither. This was the period in which were produced the masterpieces of the Carracci, Caravaggio, Domenichino, Guido, not counting those of many cosmopolitan artists, such as the brothers Bril, Elsheimer, etc., and between 1600 and 1610 Rubens, the great master of the century, paid three visits to Rome. This exceptional period was that of Domenico's apprenticeship; the labour, the unique fermentation in the world of art, resulted, as is well known, in the creation of an art which in its essential characteristics became for more than a century that of all Europe. For the old local and provincial schools (Florentine, Umbrian, etc.) Rome had the privilege of substituting a new one which was characterized by its universality . Out of a mixture of so many idioms and dialects she evolved an international language, the style which is called baroque. The discredit thrown on this school should not lead us to ignore its grandeur. In reality, the reorganization of modern painting dates from it.

Domenico is one of the most interesting types of this great evolution. Eclecticism, the fusion of divers characteristics of Correggio, Barrochi, Veronese, was already apparent in the work of Cigoli. To these Feti added much of the naturalism of Caravaggio. From him he borrowed his vulgar types, his powerful mobs, his Bohemians, his beggars in heroic rags. From him also he borrowed his violent illuminations, his novel and sometimes fantastic portrayal of the picturesque, his rare lights and strong shadows, his famous chiaroscuro, which, nevertheless, he endeavoured to develop into full daylight and the diffuse atmosphere of out-of-doors. He did not have time to succeed completely in this. His colouring is often dim, crude, and faded, though at times it assumes a golden patina and seems to solve the problem of conveying mysterious atmospheric effects.

At an early age Domenico went to Mantua with Cardinal Gonzaga, later Duke of Mantua, to whom he became court painter (hence his surname of Mantovano), and he felt the transient influence of Giulio Romano. His frescoes in the cathedral, however, are the least characteristic and the feeblest of his works. Domenico was not a good frescoist. Like all modern painters he made use of oils too frequently. By degrees he abandoned his decorative ambitions. He painted few altar-pieces, preference leading him to execute easel pictures, For the most part these dealt with religious subjects, but conceived in an intimate manner for private devotion. Scarcely any of his themes were historical, and few taken from among those, such as the Nativity, Calvary, or the entombment, which had been presented so often by painters. He preferred subjects more human and less dogmatic, more in touch with daily life, romance, and poetry. He drew by preference from the parables, as in "The Labourers in the Vineyard", "The Lost Coin" (Pitti Palace, Florence), "The Good Samaritan", "The Return of the Prodigal Son" (and others at the Museum of Dresden). Again he chose picturesque scenes from the Bible, such as "Elias in the 'Wilderness" (Berlin) and the history of Tobias (Dresden and St. Petersburg).

It is astonishing to find in the canvases of this Italian nearly the whole repertoire of Rembrandt's subjects. They had a common liking for the tenderest parts of the Gospel, for the scenes of every day, of the "eternal present", themes for genre pictures. But this is not all. Domenico was not above reproach. It was his excesses which shortened his life. May we not assume that his art is but a history of the sinful soul, a poem of repentance such as Rembrandt was to present? There is found in both painters the same confidence, the same sense of the divine Protection in spite of sin (cf. Feti's beautiful picture, "The Angel Guardian" at the Louvre), and also, occasionally, the same anguish, the same disgust of the world and the flesh as in that rare masterpiece, "Melancholy", in the same museum. Thus Domenico was in the way of becoming one of the first masters of lyric painting, and he was utilizing to the perfection of his art all that he could learn at Venice when he died in that city, worn out with pleasure, at the age of thirty-four. There is no good life of this curious artist. His principal works are to be found at Dresden (11 pictures), St. Petersburg, Vienna, Florence, and Paris.

BAGLIONE, Le vite de' pittore (Rome, 1642), 155; LANZI, Storia pittorica dell' Italiana (Milan, 1809); tr. ROSCOE (London, 1847), I, 471; II, 339; CHARLES BLANC, Histoire des peintres: Ecole romaine (Paris, s. d.); BURCKHARDT, Cicerone, ed. BODE, Fr. tr. (Paris, 1897), 809, 816; WOERMANN, Malerei (Leipzig, 1888), III, 233.

LOUIS GILLET

Fetishism

Fetishism means the religion of the fetish. The word fetish is derived through the Portuguese feitiço from the Latin factitius (facere, to do, or to make), signifying made by art, artificial (cf. Old English fetys in Chaucer). From facio are derived many words signifying idol, idolatry, or witchcraft. Later Latin has facturari, to bewitch, and factura, witchcraft. Hence Portuguese feitiço, Italian fatatura, O. Fr. faiture, meaning witchcraft, magic. The word was probably first applied to idols and amulets made by hand and supposed to possess magic power. In the early part of the sixteenth century, the Portuguese, exploring the West Coast of Africa, found the natives using small material objects in their religious worship. These they called feitiço, but the use of the term has never extended beyond the natives on the coast. Other names are bohsum, the tutelary fetishes of the Gold Coast; suhman, a term for a private fetish; gree-gree on the Liberian coast; monda in the Gabun country; bian among the cannibal Fang; in the Niger Delta ju-ju -- possibly from the French joujou. i. e. a doll or toy (Kingsley) -- and grou-grou, according to some of the same origin, according to others a native term, but the natives say that it is "a white man's word". Every Congo leader has his m'kissi; and in other tribes a word equivalent to "medicine" is used.

C. de Brosses first employed fetishism as a general descriptive term, and claimed for it a share in the early development of religious ideas (Du Culte des Dieux Fétiches, 1760). He compared the phenomena observed in the negro worship of West Africa with certain features of the old Egyptian religion. This comparison led Pietschmann to emphasize the elements of fetishism in the Egyptian religion by starting with its magic character. Basthold (1805) claimed as fetish "everything produced by nature or art, which receives divine honor, including sun, moon, earth, air, fire, water, mountains, rivers, trees, stones, images, animals, if considered as objects of divine worship". Thus the name became more general, until Comte employed it to designate only the lowest stage of religious development. In this sense the term is used from time to time, e.g. de la Rialle, Schultze, Menzies, Höffding. Taking the theory of evolution as a basis, Comte affirmed that the fundamental law of history was that of historic filiation, that is, the Law of the Three States. Thus the human race, like the human individual, passed through three successive stages: the theological or imaginative, illustrated by fetishism, polytheism, monotheism; the metaphysical or abstract, which differed from the former in explaining phenomena not by divine beings but by abstract powers or essences behind them; the positive or scientific, where man enlightened perceives that the only realities are not supernatural beings, e.g. God or angels, nor abstractions, e.g. substances or causes, but phenomena and their laws as discovered by science. Under fetishism, therefore, he classed worship of heavenly bodies, nature-worship, etc. This theory is a pure assumption, yet a long time passed before it was cast aside. The ease with which it explained everything recommended it to many. Spencer formally repudiated it (Principles of Sociology), and with Tylor made fetishism a subdivision of animism.

While we may with Tylor consider the theory of Comte as abandoned, it is difficult to admit his own view. For the spirit supposed to dwell in the fetish is not the soul or vital power belonging to that object, but a spirit foreign to the object, yet in some way connected with and embodied in it. Lippert (1881), true to his exaggerated animism, defines fetishism as "a belief in the souls of the departed coming to dwell in anything that is tangible in heaven or on earth". Schultze, analysing the consciousness of savages, says that fetishism is a worship of material objects. He claims that the narrow circle of savages' ideas leads them to admire and exaggerate the value of very small and insignificant objects, to look upon these objects anthropopathically as alive, sentient, and willing, to connect them with auspicious or inauspicious events and experiences, and finally to believe that such objects require religious veneration. In his view these four facts account for the worship of stocks and stones, bundles and bows, gores and stripes, which we call fetishism. But Schultze considers fetishism as a portion, not as the whole, of primitive religion. By the side of it he puts a worship of spirits, and these two forms run parallel for some distance, but afterwards meet and give rise to other forms of religion. He holds that man ceases to be a fetish-worshipper as soon as he learns to distinguish the spirit from the material object. To Müller and Brinton the fetish is something more than the mere object (Rel. of Prim. Peop., Philadelphia, 1898). Menzies (History of Religion, p. 129) holds that primitive man, like the untutored savage of to-day, in worshipping a tree, a snake, or an idol, worshipped the very objects themselves. He regards the suggestion that these objects represented or were even the dwelling-place of some spiritual being, as an afterthought, up to which man has grown in the lapse of ages. The study of the African negro refutes this view. Ellis writes, "Every native with whom I have conversed on the subject has laughed at the possibility of its being supposed that he could worship or offer sacrifice to some such object as a stone, which of itself would be perfectly obvious to his senses was a stone only and nothing more".

De La Saussaye regards fetishism as a form of animism, i. e. a belief in spirits incorporated in single objects, but says that not every kind of worship paid to material objects can be called fetishism, but only that which is connected with magic; otherwise the whole worship of nature would be fetishism. The stock and stone which forms the object of worship is then called the fetish. Tylor has rightly declared that it is very hard to say whether stones are to be regarded as altars, as symbols, or as fetishes. He strives to place nature-worship as a connecting link between fetishism and polytheism, though he is obliged to admit that the single stages of the process defy any accurate description. Others, e.g. Reville, de La Saussaye, separate the worship of nature from animism. To Höffding, following Usener, the fetish is only the provisional and momentary dwelling-place of a spirit. Others, e.g. Lubbock, Happel, insist that the fetish must be considered as a means of magic -- not being itself the object of worship, but a means by which man is brought into close contact with the deity -- and as endowed with divine powers. De La Saussaye holds that to savages fetishes are both objects of religious worship and means of magic. Thus a fetish may often be used for magic purposes, yet it is more than a mere means of magic, as being itself anthropopathic, and often the object of religious worship.

Within the limits of animism, Tiele and Höffding distinguish between fetishism and spiritism. Fetishism contents itself with particular objects in which it is supposed a spirit has for a longer or a shorter time taken up its abode. In spiritism, spirits are not bound up with certain objects, but may change their mode of revelation, partly at their own discretion, partly under the influence of magic. Thus Höffding declares that fetishism, as the lowest form of religion, is distinguished from spiritism by the special weight it attributes to certain definite objects as media of psychical activity. In selecting objects of fetishism, religion appears, according to Höffding, under the guise of desire. He holds that religious ideas are only religious in virtue of this connexion between need and expectation, i. e., as elements of desire, and that it is only when thus viewed that fetishism can be understood. Hübbe-Schleiden, on the contrary, holds that fetishism is not a proper designation for a religion, because Judaism and Christianity have their fetishes as well as the nature religions, and says the word fetish should be used as analogous to a word-symbol or emblem. Haddon considers fetishism as a stage of religious development. Jevons holds magic and fetishism to be the negation of religion. He denies that fetishism is the primitive religion, or a basis from which religion developed, or a stage of religious development. To him, fetishism is not only anti-social, and therefore anti-religious, he even holds that the attitude of superiority manifested by the possessor towards the fetish deprives it of religious value, or rather makes it anti-religious.

The fetish differs from an idol or an amulet, though at times it is difficult to distinguish between them. An amulet, however, is the pledge of protection of a divine power. A fetish may be an image, e. g. the New Zealand wakapakoko, or not, but the divine power or spirit is supposed to be wholly incorporated in it. Farnell says an image may be viewed as a symbol, or as infused with divine power, or as the divinity itself. Idolatry in this sense is a higher form of fetishism. Farnell does not distinguish clearly between fetish and amulet, and calls relics, crucifixes, the Bible itself, fetishes. In his view any sacred object is a fetish. But objects may be held as sacred by external association with sacred persons or places without having any intrinsic sanctity. This loose use of the word has led writers to consider the national flag (especially a tattered battle-flag), the Scottish stone of Scone, the mascot, the horseshoe, as fetishes, whereas these objects have no value in themselves, but are prized merely for their associations -- real in the ease of the battle-flag, fancied in the case of the horseshoe.

The theory advanced by certain writers that fetishism represents the earliest stage of religious thought, has a twofold basis:

• (1) philosophical;
• (2) sociological.

(1) Philosophical Basis: The Theory of Evolution

Assuming that primitive man was a semi-brute, or a semi-idiot, some writers of the Evolutionist School under the influence of Comte taught that man in the earliest stage was a fetish-worshipper, instancing in proof the African tribes, who in their view represent the original state of mankind. This basis is a pure assumption. More recent investigation reveals clearly the universal belief in a Great God, the Creator and Father of mankind, held by the negroes of Africa; Comber (Gram. and Dict, of the Congo language) and Wilson (West Guinea) prove the richness of their languages in structure and vocabulary; while Tylor, Spencer, and most advocates of the animistic theory look upon fetishism as by no means primitive, but as a decadent form of the belief in spirit and souls. Finally, there are no well-authenticated cases of savage tribes whose religion consists of fetish-worship only.

(2) Sociological Basis

Historians of civilization, impressed by the fact that many customs of savages are also found in the highest stages of civilized life, concluded that the development of the race could best be understood by taking the savage level as a starting-point. The life of savages is thus the basis of the higher development. But this argument can be inverted. For if the customs of savages may be found among civilized races, evident traces of higher ideals are also found among savages. Furthermore, the theory that a savage or a child represents exclusively, or even prominently, the life of primitive man, cannot be entertained. Writers on the philosophy of religion have used the word fetishism in a vague sense, susceptible of many shades of meaning. To obtain a correct knowledge of the subject, we must go to authorities like Wilson, Norris, Ellis, and Kingsley, who have spent years with the African negroes and have made exhaustive investigations on the spot. By fetish or ju-ju is meant the religion of the natives of West Africa. Fetishism, viewed from the outside, appears strange and complex, but is simple in its underlying idea, very logically thought out, and very reasonable to the minds of its adherents. The prevailing notion in West Guinea seems to be that God, the Creator (Anyambe, Anzam), having made the world and filled it with inhabitants, retired to some remote corner of the universe, and allowed the affairs of the world to come under the control of evil spirits. Hence the only religious worship performed is directed to these spirits, the purpose being to court their favour or ward off their displeasure. The Ashantis recognize the existence of a Supreme Being, whom they adore in a vague manner although, being invisible, He is not represented by an idol. At the commencement of the world, God was in daily relations with man. He came on earth, conversed with men, and all went well. But one day He retired in anger from the world, leaving its management to subaltern divinities. These are spirits which dwell everywhere -- in waters, woods, rocks -- and it is necessary to conciliate them, unless one wishes to encounter their displeasure. Such a phenomenon then as fetish- or spirit-worship, existing alone without an accompanying belief in a Supreme Being who is above all fetishes and other objects of worship, has yet to be discovered. Other nations, holding the fundamental idea of one God who is Lord and Creator, say that this God is too great to interest Himself in the affairs of the world; hence after having created and organized the world, He charged His subordinates with its government. Hence they neglect the worship of God for the propitiation of spirits. These spirits correspond in their functions to the gods of Greek and Roman mythology, but are never confounded with the Supreme Being by the natives. Fetishism therefore is a stage where God is quietly disregarded, and the worship due to Him is quietly transferred to a multitude of spiritual agencies under His power, but uncontrolled by it. "All the air and the future is peopled by the Bantu", says Dr. Norris, "with a large and indefinite company of spiritual beings. They have personality and will, and most of the human passions, e.g., anger, revenge, generosity, gratitude. Though they are all probably malevolent, yet they may be influenced and made favorable by worship."

In the face of this animistic view of nature and the peculiar logic of the African mind, all the seemingly weird forms and ceremonies of fetishism, e.g. the fetish or witch-doctor, become but the natural consequences of the basal idea of the popular religious belief. There are grades of spirits in the spirit-world. Miss Kingsley holds that fourteen classes of spirits are clearly discernible. Dr. Nassau thinks the spirits commonly affecting human affairs can be classified into six groups. These spirits are different in power and functions. The class of spirits that are human souls, always remain human souls; they do not become deified, nor do they sink in grade permanently. The locality of spirits is not only vaguely in the surrounding air, but in prominent natural objects, e.g. caves, enormous rocks, hollow trees, dark forests. While all can move from place to place, some belong peculiarly to certain localities. Their habitations may be natural (e.g. large trees, caverns, large rocks, capes, and promontories; and for the spirits of the dead, the villages where they had dwelt during the lifetime of the body, or graveyards) or acquired, e.g. for longer or shorter periods under the power wielded by the incantations of the nganga or native doctor. By his magic art any spirit may be localized in any object whatever, however small, and thus placed it is under the control of the "doctor" and subservient, to the wishes of the possessor or wearer of the object in which it is confined. This constitutes a fetish. The fetish-worshipper makes a clear distinction between the reverence with which he regards a certain material object and the worship he renders to the spirit for the time being inhabiting it. Where the spirit, for any reason, is supposed to have gone out of that thing and definitively abandoned it, the thing itself is no longer reverenced, but thrown away as useless, or sold to the curio-hunting white man.

Everything the African negro knows by means of his senses, he regards as a twofold entity-partly spirit, partly not spirit or, as we say, matter. In man this twofold entity appears as a corporeal body, and a spiritual or "astral" body in shape and feature like the former. This latter form of "life" with its "heart" can be stolen by magic power while one is asleep, and the individual sleeps on, unconscious of his loss. If the life-form is returned to him before he awakes, he will be unaware that anything unusual has happened. If he awakes before this portion of him has been returned, though he may live for a while, he will sicken and eventually die. If the magician who stole the "life" has eaten the "heart", the victim sickens at once and dies. The connexion of a certain spirit with a certain mass of matter is not regarded as permanent. The native will point out a lightning-struck tree, and tell you its spirit has been killed, i. e., the spirit is not actually dead, but has fled and lives elsewhere. When the cooking pot is broken, its spirit has been lost. If his weapon fails, it is because some one has stolen the spirit, or made it sick by witchcraft. In every action of life he shows how much he lives with a great, powerful spirit-world around him. Before starting to hunt or fight, he rubs medicine into his weapons to strengthen the spirit within them, talking to them the while, telling them what care he has taken of them and what he has given them before, though it was hard to give, and begging them not to fail him now. He may be seen bending over the river, talking with proper incantations to its spirit, asking that, when it meets an enemy, it will upset the canoe and destroy the occupant. The African believes that each human soul has a certain span of life due or natural to it. It should be born, grow up through childhood, youth, and manhood to old age. If this does not happen, it is because some malevolent influence has blighted it. Hence the Africans' prayers to the spirits are always: "Leave us alone!" "Go away!" "Come not into this town, plantation, house; we have never injured you. Go away!" This malevolent influence which cuts short the soul-life may act of itself in various ways, but a coercive witchcraft may have been at work. Hence the vast majority of deaths -- almost all deaths in which no trace of blood is shown -- are held to have been produced by human beings, acting through spirits in their command, and from this idea springs the widespread belief in and witches and witchcraft.

Thus every familiar object in the daily life of these people is touched with some curious fancy, and every trivial action is regulated by a reference to unseen spirits who are unceasingly watching an opportunity to hurt or annoy mankind. Yet upon close inspection the tenets of this religion are vague and unformulated, for with every tribe and every district belief varies, and rites and ceremonies diverge. The fetish-man, fetizero, nganga, chitbone, is the authority on all religious observances. He offers the expiatory sacrifice to the spirits to keep off evil. He is credited with a controlling influence over the elements, winds and waters obey the waving of his charm, i. e. a bundle of feathers, or the whistle through the magic antelope horn. He brings food for the departed, prophesies, and calls down rain. One of his principal duties is to find out evil-doers, that is, persons who by evil magic have caused sickness or death. He is the exorcist of spirits, the maker of charms (i. e. fetishes), the prescriber and regulator of ceremonial rites. He can discover who "ate the heart" of the chief who died yesterday; who caused the canoe to upset and gave lives to the crocodiles and the dark waters of the Congo; or even "who blighted the palm trees of the village and dried up their sap, causing the supply of malafu to cease; or who drove away the rain from a district, and withheld its field of nguba" (ground-nuts). The fetish doctors can scarcely be said to form a class. They have no organization, and are honoured only in their own districts, unless they be called specially to minister in another place. In their ceremonies they make the people dance, sing, play, beat drums, and they spot their bodies with their "medicines". Anyone may choose the profession for himself, and large fees are demanded for services.

Among the natives on the lower Congo is found the ceremony of n'kimba, i. e. the initiation of young men into the mysteries and rites of their religion. Every village in this region has its n'kimba enclosure, generally a walled-in tract of half an acre in extent buried in a thick grove of trees. Inside the enclosure are the huts of the nganga and his assistants, as well as of those receiving instruction. The initiated alone are permitted to enter the enclosure, where a new language is learned in which they can talk on religious matters without being understood by the people. In other parts of the Congo the office falls on an individual in quite an accidental manner, e.g. because fortune has in some way distinguished him from his fellows. Every unusual action, display of skill, or superiority is attributed to the intervention of some supernatural power. Thus the future nganga usually begins his career by some lucky adventure, e. g. prowess in hunting, success in fishing, bravery in war. He is then regarded as possessing some charm, or as enjoying the protection of some spirit. In consideration of payment he pretends to impart his power to others by means of charms, i. e. fetishes consisting of different herbs, stones, pieces of wood, antelope horns, skin and feathers tied in little bundles, the possession of which is supposed to yield to the purchaser the same power over spirits as the nganga himself enjoys.

The fetish-man always carries in his sack a strange assortment of articles out of which he makes the fetishes. The flight of the poisonous arrow, the rush of the maddened buffalo, or the venomous bite of the adder, can be averted by these charms; with their assistance the waters of the Congo may be safely crossed. The Moloki, ever ready to pounce on men, is checked by the power of the nganga. The eye-teeth of leopards are an exceedingly valuable fetish on the Kroo coast. The Kabinda negroes wear on their necks a little brown shell sealed with wax to preserve intact the fetish-medicine within. A fetish is anything that attracts attention by its curious shape (e.g. an anchor) or by its behaviour, or anything seen in a dream, and is generally not shaped to represent the spirit. A fetish may be such by the force of its own proper spirit, but more commonly a spirit is supposed to be attracted to the object from without (e.g. the suhman), whether by the incantations of the nganga or not. These wandering spirits may be natural spirits or ghosts. The Melanesians believe that the souls of the dead act through bones, while the independent spirits choose stones as their mediums (Brinton, Religions of Prim. Peoples, New York, 1897). Ellis says, if a man wants a suhman (a fetish), he takes some object (a rudely cut wooden image, a stone, a root of a plant, or some red earth placed in a pan), and then calls on a spirit of Sasabonsum (a genus of deities) to enter the object prepared, promising it offerings and worship. If a spirit consents to take up its residence in the object, a low hissing sound is heard, and the suhman is complete.

Every house in the Congo village has its m'kissi; they are frequently put over the door or brought inside, and are supposed to protect the house from fire and robbery. The selection of the object in which the spirit is to reside is made by the native nganga. The ability to conjure a free wandering spirit into the narrow limits of this material object, and to compel or subordinate its power to the service of some designated person and for a special purpose, rests with him. The favourite articles used to confine spirits are skins (especially tails of bushcats), horns of the antelope, nutshells, snail-shells, eagles' claws and feathers, tails and heads of snakes, stones, roots, herbs, bones of any animal (e.g. small horns of gazelles or of goats), teeth and claws of leopards, but especially human bones -- of ancestors or of renowned men, but particularly of enemies or white men. Newly made graves are rifled for them, and among the bodily parts most prized are portions of human skulls, human eyeballs, especially those of white men. But anything may be chosen -- a stick, string, bead, stone, or rag of cloth. Apparently there is no limit to the number of spirits; there is literally no limit to the number and character of the articles in which they may be confined. As, however, the spirits may quit the objects, it is not always certain that fetishes possess extraordinary powers; they must be tried and give proof of their efficiency before they can be implicitly trusted. Thus, according to Ellis, the natives of the Gold Coast put their bohsum in fire as a probation, for the fire never injures the true bohsum. A fetish then, in the strict sense of the word, is any material object consecrated by the nganga or magic doctor with a variety of ceremonies and processes, by virtue of which some spirit is supposed to become localized in that object, and subject to the will of the possessor.

These objects are filled or rubbed by the nganga with a mixture compounded of various substances, selected according to the special work to be accomplished by the fetish. Its value, however, depends not on itself, nor solely on the nature of these substances, but on the skill of the nganga in dealing with spirits. Yet there is a relation, difficult sometimes for the foreigner to grasp, between the substances selected and the object to be attained by the fetish. Thus, to give the possessor bravery or strength, some part of a leopard or of an elephant is selected; to give cunning, some part of a gazelle; to give wisdom, some part of the human brain; to give courage, a portion of the heart; to give influence, some part of the eye. These substances are supposed to please and attract some spirit, which is satisfied to reside in them and to aid their possessor. The fetish is compounded in secret, with the accompaniment of drums, dancing, invocations, looking into mirrors or limpid water to see faces human or spiritual, and is packed into the hollow of the shell or bone, or smeared over the stick or stone. If power over some one be desired, the nganga must receive crumbs from the food, clippings of the finger-nails, some hair, or even a drop of blood of the person, which is mixed in the compound. So fearful are the natives of power being thus obtained over them, that they have their hair cut by a friend; and even then it is carefully burned, or cast into the river. If one is accidentally cut, he stamps out the blood that has dropped on the ground, or cuts away the wood which it has saturated.

The African negro in appealing to the fetish is prompted by fear alone. There is no confession, no love, rarely thanksgiving. The being to whom he appeals is not God. True he does not deny that God is; if asked, he will acknowledge His existence. Very rarely and only in extreme emergencies, however, does he make an appeal to Him, for according to his belief God is so far off, so inaccessible, so indifferent to human wants, that a petition to Him would be almost vain. He therefore turns to some one of the mass of spirits whom he believes to be ever near and observant of human affairs, in which, as former human beings, some of them once had part. He seeks not spiritual, but purely physical, safety. A sense of moral and spiritual need is lost sight of, although not quite eliminated, for he believes in a good and a bad. But the dominant feeling is fear of possible natural injury from human or subsidized spiritual enemies. This physical salvation is sought either by prayer, sacrifice, and certain other ceremonies rendered to the spirit of the fetish or to non-localized spirits, or by the use of charms or amulets. These charms may be material, i. e. fetishes; vocal, e.g. utterances of cabbalistic words which are supposed to have power over the local spirits; ritual, e.g. prohibited food, i. e. orunda, for which any article of food may be selected and made sacred to the spirit. At night the Congo chief will trace a slender line of ashes round his hut, and firmly believe that he has erected a barrier which will protect him and his till morning against the attacks of the evil spirit.

The African believes largely in preventive measures, and his fetishes are chiefly of this order. When least conscious, he may be offending some spirit with power to work him ill; he must therefore be supplied with charms for every season and occasion. Sleeping, eating, drinking, he must be protected from hostile influences by his fetishes. These are hung on the plantation fence, or from the branches of plants in the garden, either to prevent theft or to sicken the thief over the doorway of the house, to bar the entrance of evil; from the bow of the canoe, to ensure a successful voyage; they are worn on the arm in hunting to ensure an accurate aim; on any part of the person, to give success in loving, hating, planting, fishing, buying; and so through the whole range of daily work and interests. Some kinds, worn on a bracelet or necklace, ward off sickness. The new-born infant has a health-knot tied about its neck, wrist, or loins. Before every house in Whydah, the seaport of Dahomey, one may perceive a cone of baked clay, the apex of which is discoloured with libations of palm-oil, etc. To the end of their lives the people keep on multiplying, renewing, or altering these fetishes.

In fetish-worship the African negro uses prayer and sacrifice. The stones heaped by passers-by at the base of some great tree or rock, the leaf cast from a passing canoe towards a point of land on the river bank, are silent acknowledgements of the presence of the ombwiris (i.e. spirits of the place). Food is offered, as also blood-offerings of a fowl, a goat, or a sheep. Until recently human sacrifices were offered, e.g. to the sacred crocodiles of the Niger Delta; to the spirits of the oil-rivers on the upper Guinea coast, where annual sacrifices of a maiden were made for success in foreign commerce; the thousands of captives killed at the "annual custom" of Dahomey for the safety of the king and nation. In fetishism prayer has a part, but it is not prominent, and not often formal and public. Ejaculatory prayer is constantly made in the utterance of cabbalistic words, phrases, or sentences adopted by, or assigned to, almost every one by parent or doctor. According to Ellis no coercion of the fetish is attempted on the Gold Coast, but Kidd states that the negro of Guinea beats his fetish, if his wishes are frustrated, and hides it in his waist-cloth when he is about to do anything of which he is ashamed.

The fetish is used not only as a preventive of or defence against evil (i. e. white art), but also as a means of offence, i. e. black art or witchcraft in the full sense, which always connotes a possible taking of life. The half-civilized negro, while repudiating the fetish as a black art, feels justified in retaining it as a white art, i. e. as a weapon of defence. Those who practise the black art are all "wizards" or "witches" -- names never given to practisers of the white art. The user of the white art uses no concealment; a practitioner of the black art denies it, and carries on its practice secretly. The black art is supposed to consist of evil practices to cause sickness and death. Its medicines, dances, and enchantments are also used in the professed innocent white art; the difference is in the work which the spirit is entrusted to perform. Not every one who uses white art is able to use also the black art. Anyone believing in the fetish can use the white art without subjecting himself to the charge of being a wizard. Only a wizard can cause sickness or death. Hence witchcraft belief includes witchcraft murder.

There exists in Bantu a society called the "Witchcraft Company", whose members hold secret meetings at midnight in the depths of the forest to plot sickness or death. The owl is their sacred bird, and their signal-call is an imitation of its hoot. They profess to leave their corporeal bodies asleep in their huts, and it is only their spirit-bodies that attend the meeting, passing through walls and over tree-Lops with instant rapidity. At the meeting they have visible, audible, and tangible communications with spirits. They have feasts, at which is eaten "the heart-life" of some human being, who through this loss of his "heart" falls sick and dies unless the "heart" be restored. The early cock-crow is a warning for them to disperse, for they fear the advent of the morning star, as, should the sun rise upon them before they reach their corporeal bodies, all their plans would fail and they would sicken. They dread cayenne pepper; should its bruised leaves or pods be rubbed over their corporeal bodies during their absence, their spirits are unable to re-enter, and their bodies die or waste miserably away. This society was introduced by black slaves to the West Indies, e.g. Jamaica and Hayti, and to the Southern States as Voodoo worship. Thus Voodooism or Odoism is simply African fetishism transplanted to American soil. Authentic records are procurable of midnight meetings held in Hayti, as late as 1888, at which human beings, especially children, were killed and eaten at the secret feasts. European governments in Africa have put down the practice of the black art, yet so deeply is it implanted in the belief of the natives that Dr. Norris does not hesitate to say it would revive if the whites were to withdraw.

Fetishism in Africa is not only a religious belief; it is a system of government and a medical profession, although the religious element is fundamental and colours all the rest. The fetish-man, therefore, is priest, judge, and physician. To the believers in the fetish the killing of those guilty of witchcraft is a judicial act; it is not murder, but execution. The fetish-man has power to condemn to death. A judicial system does not exist. Whatever rules there are, are handed down by tradition, and the persons familiar with these old sayings and customs are present in the trial of disputed matters. Fetishes are set up to punish offenders in certain cases where it is considered specially desirable to make the law operative though the crimes cannot be detected (e.g. theft). The fetish is supposed to be able not only to detect but to punish the transgressor. In cases of death the charge of witchcraft is made, and the relatives seek a fetish-man, who employs the ordeal by poison, fire or other tests to detect the guilty person. Formerly mbwaye (i. e. ordeal by poison) was performed by giving to the accused a poisonous drink, the accuser also having to take the test to prove their sincerity. If he vomited immediately he was innocent; if he was shown guilty, the accusers were the executioners. On the upper coast of Guinea the test is a solution of the sassawood, and is called "red water"; at Calahar, the solution of a bean; in the Gabun country, of the akazya leaf or bark; farther south in the Nkami country, it is called mbundu. The distinction between poison and fetish is vague in the minds of many natives, to whom poison is only another material form of a fetish power. It has been estimated that for every natural death at least one -- and often ten or more -- has been executed.

The judicial aspect of fetishism is revealed most plainly in the secret societies (male and female) of crushing power and far-reaching influence, which before the advent of the white man were the court of last appeal for individual and tribal disputes. Of this kind were the Egho of the Niger Delta, Ukuku of the Corisco region, Yasi of the Ogowé, M'wetyi of the Shekani, Bweti of the Bakele, Inda and Njembe of the Mpongwe, Ukuku and Malinda of the Batanga region. All of these societies had for their primary object the laudable one of government, and, for this purpose, they fostered the superstitious dread with which the fetish was regarded by the natives. But the arbitrary means employed in their management, the oppressive influences at work, the false representations indulged in, made them almost all evil. They still exist among the interior tribes; on the coast, they have either been entirely suppressed or exist only for amusement (e.g. Ukuku in Gabun), or as a traditional custom (e.g. Njembe). The Ukuku society claimed the government of the country. To put "Ukuku on the white man" meant to boycott him, i. e. that no one should work for him, no one should sell food or drink to him; he was not allowed to go to his own spring. In Dahomey the fetish-priests are a kind of secret police for the despotic king. Thus, while witchcraft was the religion of the natives, these societies constituted their government.

Although sickness is spoken of among the natives as a disease, yet the patient is said to be sick because of an evil spirit, and it is believed that when this is driven out by the magician's benevolent spirit, the patient will recover. When the heathen negro is sick, the first thing is to call the "doctor" to find out what spirit by invading the body has caused the sickness. The diagnosis is made by drum, dance, frenzied song, mirror, fumes of drugs, consultation of relics, and conversation with the spirit itself. Next must be decided the ceremony peculiar to that spirit, the vegetable and mineral substances supposed to be either pleasing or offensive to it. If these cannot be obtained, the patient must die. The witch-doctor believes that his incantations have subsidized the power of a spirit, which forthwith enters the body of the patient and, searching through its vitals, drives out the antagonizing spirit which is the supposed actual cause of the disease. The nkinda, "the spirit of disease", is then confined by the doctor in a prison, e.g. in a section of sugar-cane stalk with its leaves tied together. The component parts of any fetish are regarded by the natives as we regard the drugs of our materia medica. Their drugs, however, are esteemed operative not through certain inherent chemical qualities, but in consequence of the presence of the spirit to whom they are favourite media. This spirit is induced to act by the pleasing enchantments of the magic-doctor. The nganga, as surgeon and physician, shows more than considerable skill in extracting bullets from wounded warriors, and in the knowledge of herbs as poisons and antidotes.

Whether the black slaves brought to America the okra or found it already existing on the continent is uncertain, but the term gumbo is undoubtedly of African origin, as also is the term mbenda (peanuts or ground-nuts), corrupted into pindar in some of the Southern States. The folk-lore of the African slave survives in Uncle Remus's tales of "Br'er Rabbit". Br'er Rabbit is an American substitution for Brother Nja (Leopard) or Brother Iheli (Gazelle) in Paia N'jambi's (the Creator's) council of speaking animals. Jevons holds that fetishes are private only, although, in fact, not only individuals, but families and tribes have fetishes. The fetish Deute at Krakje and Atia Yaw of Okwaou were known and feared for leagues around. In the Benga tribe of West Africa the family fetish is known by the name of Yãkã. It is a bundle of the parts of bodies of their dead, i. e. first joints of fingers and toes, lobe of ear, hair. The value of Yãkã depends on the spirits of the family dead being associated with the portions of their bodies, and this combination is effected by the prayer and incantation of the doctor. The Yãkã is appealed to in family emergencies, e.g. disease, death, when ordinary fetishes fail. This rite is very expensive and may require a month, during which time all work is suspended.

The observances of fetish-worship fade away into the customs and habits of everyday life by gradations, so that in some of the superstitious beliefs, while there may be no formal handling of a fetish amulet containing a spirit nor actual prayer nor sacrifice, nevertheless spiritism is the thought and is more or less consciously held, and consequently the term fetish might perhaps be extended to them. The superstition of the African negro is different from that of the Christian, for it is the practical and logical application of his religion. To the Christian it is a pitiful weakness; to the negro, a trusted belief. Thus some birds and beasts are of ill omen, others of good omen. The mournful hooting of an owl at midnight is a warning of death, and all who hear the call will hasten to the wood and drive away the messenger of ill-tidings with sticks and stones. Hence arises the belief in the power of Ngoi, Moloki, N'doshi or Uvengwa (i. e., evil-spirited leopard, like the German werewolf), viz., that certain possessors of evil spirits have ability to assume the guise of an animal, and reassume at will the human form. To this superstition must be referred the reverence shown fetish leopards, hippopotami, crocodiles, sokos (large monkeys of the gorilla type).

(See AMULET, ANIMISM, DEITY, IDOLATRY, MAGIC, NATURISM, RELIGION, SPIRITISM, TOTEMISM, SHAMANISM, SYMBOLISM.)

BRINTON, The Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York, 1897); ELLIS, The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of W. Africa (London, 1887); IDEM, The Yomba-speaking Peoples of the Slave-Coast of W. Africa (London, 1894); FARNELL, Evolution of Religion (London and New York, 1905); HADDON, Magic and Fetichism in Religions, Ancient and Modern (London, 1906); HÖFFDING, The Philosophy of Religion, tr. MEYEA (London and New York, 1906); JEVONS, Introduction to Study of Comparative Religion (New York, 1908); KELLOG, Genesis and Growth of Religion (London and New York, 1892); KIDD, The Essential Kaffir (London, 1904); KINGSLEY, Travels in West Africa (London, 1898); IDEM, West African Studies (London, 1899); LEPPEET, Die Religionen der europäischen Culturvölker (Berlin, 1881); MÜLLER, Natural Religion (London, 1892); IDEM, Origin and Growth of Religion (London, 1878); NORRIS, Fetichism in W. Africa (New York, 1904); SCHULTZE, Psychologie der Naturvölker (Leipzig, 1900); SPENCER ST. JOHN, Hayti and the Black Republic (2d ed., London, 1889); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (2d ed., London, 1873); WILSON, Western Africa (New York, 1856); AMES, African Fetichism (Heli Chatelain) in FolkLore (Oct., Dec., 1894); GLAU, Fetichism in Congo Land in Century (April, 1891); KINGSLEY, The Fetich View of the Human Soul in Folk-Lore (June, 1897); NIPPESLEY, Fetich Faith in W. Africa in Pop. Sc. Monthly (Oct., 1887); LE ROY, La religion des primitifs (Paris, 1909).

JOHN T. DRISCOLL.

François Feuardent

A Franciscan, theologian, preacher of the Ligue, b. at Coutanees, Normandy, in 1539; d. at Paris, 1 Jan., 1610. Having compteted his humanities at Bayeux, he joined the Friars Minor. After the novitiate, he was sent to Paris to continue his studies, where he received (1576) the degree of Doctor in Theology and taught with great success at the university. He took a leading part in the political and religious troubles in which France was involved at that time. With John Boucher and Bishop Rose of Senlis, he was one of the foremost preachers in the cause of the Catholic Ligue and, as Roennus remarks in an appendix to Feuardent's "Theomachia", there was not a church in Paris in which he had not preached. Throughout France and beyond the frontiers in Lorraine and Flanders, he was an eloquent and ardent defender of the Faith. Nevertheless even Pierre de l'Etoile, a fierce adversary of the Ligue, recognises in his "Mémoires" the merits of Feuardent's subsequent efforts in pacifying the country. In his old age he retired to the convent of Bayeux, which he restored and furnished with a good library. His works can be conveniently grouped in three classes: (1) Scriptural; (2) patristical; (3) controversial. Only some of the most remarkable may be pointed out here. (1) A new edition of the medieval Scripturist, Nicholas of Lyra: "Biblia Sacra, cum glossa ordinaria . . . et postillâ Nicolai Lyrani" (Paris, 1590), 6 vols. fol.). He also wrote commentaries on various books of Holy Scripture, viz on Ruth Esther, Job, Jonas, the two Epistles of St. Peter, the Epistles of St. Jude and St. James, the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, and others. (2) "S. Irenaei Lugd. episcopi adversus Valentini . . . haereses libri quinque" (Paris, 1576); "S. lldephonsi archiepiscopi Toletani de virginitate Mariae liber" (Paris, 1576). Feuardent also wrote an introduction and notes to "Michaelis Pselli Dialogus de energiâ seu operatione daemonum translatus a Petro Marrello" (Paris, 1577). (3) "Appendix ad libros Alphonsi a Castro (O.F.M.) contra haereses" (Paris, 1578). "Theomachia Calvinistica", his chief work is based on some earlier writings, such as: "Semaine premiere des dialogues auxquels sont examinees et refutees 174 erreurs des Calviniste" (1585); "Seconde semaine des dialogues . . ." (Paris, 1598); "Entremangeries et guerres mininstrales . . ." (Caen, 1601).

LIVARIUS OLIGER

Baron Ernst Von Feuchtersleben

An Austrian poet, philosopher, and physician; born at Vienna, 29 April, 1806; died 3 September, 1849. After completing his course at the Theresian Academy, he took up the study of medicine in 1825, receiving the degree of Doctor of Medicine in 1833. In 1844 he began a series of free lectures on psychiatry at the University of Vienna, the next year became dean of the medical faculty, and in 1847 was made vice-director of medico-chirurgical studies. In July, 1848, he was appointed under-secretary of state in the ministry of public instruction, and in this capacity he attempted to introduce some important reforms in the system of education, but, discouraged by the difficulties which he encountered, he resigned in December of the following year. As a medico-philosophical writer, Feuchtersleben attained great popularity, especially through his book "Zur Diätetik der Seele" (Vienna, 1838), which went through many editions (46th in 1896). Hardly less famous is his "Lehrbuch der ârztlichen Seelenkunde" (Vienna, 1845), translated into English by H. Evans Lloyd under the title of "Principles of Medical Psychology" (revised and edited by B. C. Babington, London, 1847). He also wrote an essay, "Die Gewissheit und Würde der Heilkunst" (Vienna, 1839), a new edition of which appeared under the title "Aerzte und Publikum" (Vienna, 1845). As a poet Feuchtersleben is chiefly known by the well-known song, "Es ist bestimmt in Gottes Rat", which appeared in "Gedichte" (Stuttgart, 1836) and was set to music by Mendelssohn. His later poems are more philosophical and critical. His essays and other prose writings were published under the title "Beiträge zur Litteratur-, Kunst- und Lebenstheorie" (Vienna, 1837-41). His complete works (exclusive of his medical writings) were edited by Friedrich Hebbel (7 vols., Vienna, 1851-53).

Consult the autobiography prefixed to the above-mentioned edition; also NECKER, Ernst v. Feuchtersleben, der Freund Grillparzers in Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, III (Vienna, 1893).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Feudalism

This term is derived from the Old Aryan pe'ku, hence Sanskrit pacu, "cattle"; so also Lat. pecus (cf. pecunia); Old High German fehu, fihu, "cattle", "property", "money"; Old Frisian fia; Old Saxon fehu; Old English feoh, fioh, feo, fee. It is an indefinable word for it represents the progressive development of European organization during seven centuries. Its roots go back into the social conditions of primitive peoples, and its branches stretch out through military, political, and judicial evolution to our own day. Still it can so far be brought within the measurable compass of a definition if sufficient allowance be made for its double aspect. For feudalism (like every other systematic arrangement of civil and religious forces in a state) comprises duties and rights, according as it is looked at central or local point of view. (1) As regards the duties involved in it, feudalism may be defined as a contractual system by which the nation as represented by the king lets its lands out to individuals who pay rent by doing governmental work not merely in the shape of military service, but also of suit to the king's court. Originally indeed it began as a military system. It was in imitation of the later Roman Empire, which met the Germanic inroads by grants of lands to individuals on condition of military service (Palgrave, "English Commonwealth", I, 350, 495, 505), that the Carlovingian Empire adopted the same expedient. By this means the ninth century Danish raids were opposed by a semi-professional army, better armed and more tactically efficient than the old Germanic levy. This method of forming a standing national force by grants of lands to individuals is perfectly normal in history, witness the Turkish timar fiefs (Cambridge Modern History, I, iii, 99, 1902), the fief de soudée of the Eastern Latin kingdoms (Bréhier, "L'Eglise et l'Orient au moyen âge", Paris, 1907, iv, 94), and, to a certain extent, the Welsh uchelwyr (Rhys and Jones, "The Welsh People", London, 1900, vi, 205). On the whole feudalism means government by amateurs paid in land rather than professionals paid in money. Hence, as we shall see, one cause of the downfall of feudalism was the substitution in every branch of civil life of the "cash-nexus" for the "land-nexus". Feudalism, therefore, by connecting ownership of land with governmental work, went a large way toward solving that ever present difficulty of the land question; not, indeed, by any real system of land nationalization, but by inducing lords to do work for the country in return for the right of possessing landed property. Thus, gradually, it approximated to, and realized, the political ideal of Aristotle, "Private possession and common use" (Politics, II, v, 1263, a). To a certain extent, therefore, feudalism still exists, remaining as the great justification of modern landowners wherever, -- as sheriffs, justices of the peace, etc. -- they do unpaid governmental work. (2) As regards the rights it creates, feudalism may be defined as a "graduated system based on land tenure in which every lord judged, taxed, and commanded the class next below him" (Stubbs, "Constitutional History", Oxford, 1897, I, ix, 278). One result of this was that, whenever a Charter of Liberties was wrung by the baronage from the king, the latter always managed to have his concessions to his tenants-in-chief paralleled by their concessions to their lower vassals (cf. Stubbs, "Select Charters", Oxford, 1900, § 4, 101, 60, 304). Another more serious, less beneficent, result was that, while feudalism centrally converted the sovereign into a landowner, it locally converted the landowner into a sovereign.

Origin

The source of feudalism rises from an intermingling of barbarian usage and Roman law (Maine, "Ancient Law", London, 1906, ix). To explain this reference must be made to a change that passed over the Roman Empire at the beginning of the fourth century. About that date Diocletian reorganized the Empire by the establishment of a huge bureaucracy, at the same time disabling it by his crushing taxation. The obvious result was the depression of free classes into unfree, and the barbarization of the Empire. Before A.D. 300 the absentee landlord farmed his land by means of a familia rustica or gang of slaves, owned by him as his own transferable property, though others might till their fields by hired labor. Two causes extended and intensified this organized slave system: (1) Imperial legislation that two thirds of a man's wealth must be in land, so as to set free hoarded specie, and prevent attempts to hide wealth and so escape taxation. Hence land became the medium of exchange instead of money, i.e. land was held not by rent but by service. (2) The pressure of taxation falling on land (tributum soli) forced smaller proprietors to put themselves under their rich neighbors, who paid the tax for them, but for whom they were accordingly obliged to perform service (obsequium) in work and kind. Thus they became tied to the soil (ascripti glebae), not transferable dependents. Over them the lord had powers of correction, not apparently, of jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, the slaves themselves had become also territorial not personal. Further, the public land (ager publicus) got memorialized by grants partly to free veterans (as at Colchester in England), partly to laeti, -- a semi-servile class of conquered peoples (as the Germans in England under Marcus Antonius), paying, beside the tributum soli, manual service in kind (sordida munera). Even in the Roman towns, by the same process, the urban landlords (curiales) became debased into the manufacturing population (collegiati). In a word, the middle class disappeared; the Empire was split into two opposing forces: an aristocratic bureaucracy and a servile laboring population. Over the Roman Empire thus organized poured the Teutonic flood, and these barbarians had also their organization, rude and changeful though it might be. According to Tacitus (Germania) the Germans were divided into some forty civitates, or populi, or folks. Some of these, near the roman borders, lived under kings, others, more remote, were governed by folk moots or elective princes. Several of these might combine to form a "stem", the only bond of which consisted in common religious rites. The populus, or civitas, on the other hand, was a political unity. It was divided into pagi, each pagus being apparently a jurisdictional limit, probably meeting in a court over which a princeps, elected by the folk moot, presided, but in which the causes were decided by a body of freemen usually numbering about a hundred. Parallel with the pagus, according to Tacitus (Germania, xii), though in reality probably a division of it, was the vicus, an agricultural unit. The vicus was (though Seebohm, "English Historical Review", July, 1892, 444-465 thought not) represented in two types (1) the dependent village, consisting of the lord's house, and cottages of his subordinates (perhaps the relics of indigenous conquered peoples) who paid rent in kind, corn, cattle, (2) the free village of scatt ered houses, each with its separate enclosure. Round this village stretched great meadows on which the villagers pastured their cattle. Every year a piece of new land was set apart to be plowed, of which each villager got a share proportioned to his official position in the community. It was the amalgamation of these two systems that produced feudalism.

But here, precisely as to the relative preponderance of the Germanic and Roman systems in manorial feudalism, the discussion still continues. The question turns, to a certain extent, on the view taken of the character of the Germanic inroads. The defenders of Roman preponderance depict these movements as mere raids, producing indeed much material damage, but in reality not altering the race or the institutions of the Romanized peoples. Their opponents, however, speak of these incursions rather as people-wanderings -- of warriors, women, and children, cattle even, and slaves, indelibly stamping and molding the institutions of the race which they encountered. The same discussion focuses around the medieval manor, which is best seen in its English form. The old theory was that the manor was the same as the Teutonic mark, plus the intrusion of a lord (Stubbs, "Constitutional History", Oxford, 1897, I, 32-71). This was attacked by Fustel de Coulanges (Histoire des institutions politiques et de l'ancienne France, Paris, 1901) and by Seebohm (The English Village Community, London, 1883, viii, 252-316, who insisted on a Latin ancestry from the Roman villa, contending for a development not from freedom to serfdom, but from slavery, through serfdom, to freedom. The arguements of the Latin School may be thus summarized: (1) the mark is a figment of the Teutonic brain (cf. Murray's "Oxford English Dictionary", s.v., 167; "markmoot" probably means "a parsley bed"). (2) early German law is based on assumption of private ownership. (3) Analogies of Maine and others from India and Russia not to the point. (4) Romanized Britons, for example, in south-eastern Britain had complete manorial system before the Saxons came from Germany. -- They are thus answered by the Teutonic School (Elton, Eng. Hist. Rev., July, 1886; Vinogradoff, "Growth of the Manor", London, 1905, 87, Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond", Cambridge, 1897, 222, 232, 327, 337): (1) the name "mark" may not be applied in England but the thing existed. (2) It is not denied that there are analogies between the Roman vill and the later manor, but analogies do not necessarily prove derivation. (3) The manor was not an agricultural unit only, it was also judicial. If the manor originated in the Roman vill, which was composed of a servile population, how came it that the suitors to the court were also judges? or that villagers had common rights over waste land as against their lord? or that the community was represented in the hundred court by four men and its reeve? (4) Seebohm's evidence is almost entirely drawn from the positions of villas and villeins on the demesnes of kings, great ecclesiastical bodies, or churchmen. Such villages were admittedly dependent. (5) Most of the evidence comes through the tainted source of Norman and French lawyers who were inclined to see serfdom even where it did not exist. On the whole, the latest writers on feudalism, taking a legal point of view, incline to the Teutonic School.

Causes

The same cause that produced in the later Roman Empire the disappearance of a middle class and the confronted lines of bureaucracy and a servile population, operated on the teutonized Latins and latinized Teutons to develop the complete system of feudalism.

(1) Taxation, whether by means of feorm-fultum, danegelt, or gabelle, forced the poorer man to commend himself to a lord. The lord paid the tax but demanded in exchange conditions of service. The service-doing dependent therefore was said to have "taken his land" to a lord in payment for a tax, which land the lord restored to him to be held in fief, and this (i.e. land held in fief from a lord) is the germ-cell of feudalism.

(2) Another, and more outstanding cause, was the royal grant of fole-land. Around this, too, historians at one time ranged in dispute. The older view was that fole-land was simply private land, the authoritative possession of which was based upon the witness of the people as opposed to the bok-land, with its written title deeds. But in 1830 John Allen (Rise and Growth of Royal Prerogative) tried to show that fole-land was in reality public property, national, waste, or unappropriated land. His theory was that all land-books (conveyances of land) made by the Anglo-Saxon kings were simply thefts from the national demesne, made for the benefit of the king, his favorites, or the Church. The land-book was an ecclesiastical instrument introduced by the Roman missionaries, first used by that zealous convert, Ethelbert of Kent, though not becoming common until the ninth century. Allen based his theory on two grounds: (a) the king occasionally books land to himself, which could not therefore have been his before; (b) the assent of the Witan was necessary to grants of fole-land, which, therefore, was regarded as a national possession. To this Professor Vinogradoff (Eng. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1893, 1-17) made answer: (a) that even the village knew nothing of common ownership, and that a fortiori, the whole nation would not have had such an idea; (b) that the king in his charters never speaks of terram gentis but terram juris sui; (c) that the land thus conveyed away is often expressly described as being inhabited, cultivated, etc., and therefore cannot have been unappropriated or waste land. Finally, Professor Maitland (Domesday Book and Beyond, Cambridge, 1897, 244) clearly explains what happened by distinguishing two sorts of ownership, economic and political. Economic ownership is the right to share in the agricultural returns of the land, as does the modern landlord, etc. Political ownership is the right to the judicial returns from the soil -- ownership, therefore, in the sense of governing it or exercising ownership over it. By the land-bok, therefore, land was handed over to be owned, not economically but politically; and the men suing on the courts of justice, paying toll, etc., directed their fines, not to the exchequer, but to the newly-intruded lord, who thus possessed suzerainty and its fiscal results. In consequence the local lord received the privilege of the feorm-fultum, or the right to be entertained for one night or more in progress. So, too, in Ireland, until the seventeenth century, the chieftains enjoyed "coigne and livery" of their tribesmen; and in medieval France there was the lord's droit de gête. This land-tax in kind, not unnaturally, helped in villeinizing the freemen. Moreover the king surrendered to the new lord the profits of justice and the rights of toll, making, therefore, the freeman still more dependent on hiss lord. However it must also be stated that the king nearly always retained the more important criminal and civil cases in his own hands. Still the results of the king's transference of rights over fole-land was easy enough to foresee, i.e. the depression of the free village. The steps of this depression may be shortly set out: (a) the Church or lord entitled to food-rents established an overseer to collect this rent in kind. Somehow or other this overseer appropriated land for a demesne, partly in place of, partly along side of, the food-rents; (b) the Church or the lord entitled by the land-bok to jurisdictionl profits made the tenure of land by the villagers depend upon suit to his court; the villager's transfers came to be made at that court, and were finally conceived as having their validity from the gift or grant from its president.

(3) Meanwhile the action of the State extended this depression (a) by its very endeavor in the tenth century Capitularies to keep law and order in those rude cattle-lifting societies. For the system evolved was that men should be grouped in such a manner that one man should be responsible for another, especially the lord for his men. As an example of the former may be taken the Capitularies of the Frankish kings, such as of Childebert and Clotaire, and of the English king Edgar. (Stubbs, Select Charters, 69-74); and of the latter the famous ordinance of Athelstan (Conc. Treatonlea, c. 930, ii; Stubbs, Select Charters, Oxford, 1900, 66): "And we have ordained respecting those lordless men of whom no law can be got, that the hundred be commanded that they domicile him to folk right and find him a lord in the folk-moot"; (b) another way was by the institution of central taxation in the eleventh century -- in England by means of danegelt, abroad by various gabelles. These were moneta ry taxes at a time when other payments were still largely made in kind. Accordingly, just as under the later Roman Empire, the poorer man commended himself to a lord, who paid for him, but demanded in stead payment in service, a tributum soli. The dependent developed into a retainer, as in the Lancastrian days of maintenance, to be protected by his lord, even in the royal courts of justice, and repaying his master by service, military and economic, and by the feudal incidents of herlot, wardship, etc. (for details of feudal aids, cf. Maitland, Constitutional history, 27-30)

(4) Nor should it be forgotten that a ceorl or merchant could "thrive" (Stubbs, Select Charters, 65; probably of eleventh century date), so as to amass wealth to the loss of his neighbors, and gradually to become a master of villeins -- possessing a church, a kitchen where the said villeins must bake their bread (jus furmi), a semi-fortified bell-house and a burgh-gate where he could sit in judgment.

(5) The last great cause that developed feudalism was war. It is an old saying, nearly a dozen centuries old, that "war begat the king". It is no less true that war, not civil, but international, begat feudalism. First it forced the kings to cease to surround themselves with an antiquated fyrd or national militia, that had forgotten in its agricultural pursuits that rapidity of movement was the first essential of military success, and by beating the sword into the plowshare had lost every desire to beat back the iron into its old form. In consequence a new military force was organized, a professional standing army. This army had to be fed and housed in time of peace. As a result its individual members were granted lands and estates. or lived with the king as his personal suite. At any rate, instead of every able-bodied man being individually bound in person to serve his sovereign in the field, the lords or landowners were obliged in virtue of their tenure to furnish a certain quantity of fighting men, armed with fixed and definite weapons, according to the degree, rank and wealth of the combatant. Secondly, it gave another reason for commendation, i.e. protection. The lord was now asked, not to pay a tax, but to extend the sphere of his influence so as to enable a lonely, solitary farmstead to keep off the attacks of a foe, or at least to afford a place of retreat and shelter in time of war. This the lord would do for a consideration, to wit, that the protected man should acknowledge himself to be judicially, politically, economically, the dependent of his high protector. Finally, the king himself was pushed up to the apex of the whole system. The various lords commended themselves to this central figure, to aid them in times of stress, for they saw the uselessness of singly trying to repel a foe. They were continually being defeated because "shire would not help shire" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1010). Thus the very reason why the English left Ethelred the Unready to accept Sweyn as full king (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1012) was simply because Ethelred had no idea of centralizing and unifying the nation; just as in the contrary sense the successful resistance of Paris to the Northmen gave to its dukes, the Lords of the Isle of France, the royal titles which the Carlovingians of Laon were too feeble to defend; and the lack of a defensive national war prevented any unification of the unwieldy Holy Roman Empire. This is effectually demonstrated by the real outburst of national feeling that centered round one of the weakest of all the emperors, Frederick III, at the siege of Neuss, simply because Charles the Bold was thought to be threatening Germany by his attack on Cologne. From these wars, then, the kings emerged, no longer as mere leaders of their people but as owners of the land upon which their people lived, no longer as Reges Francorum but as Reges Franciae, nor as Duces Normannorum but as Duces Normanniae, nor as Kings of the Angleycin but of Engla-land. This exchange of tribal for territorial sovereignty marks the complete existence of feudalism as an organization of society in all its relations (economic, judicial, political), upon a basis of commendation and land-tenure.

Essence

We are now, therefore, in a position to understand what exactly feudalism was. Bearing in mind the double definition given at the beginning, we may, for the sake of clearness, resolve feudalism into its three component parts. It includes a territorial element, an idea of vassalage, and the privilege of an immunity.

(1) The territorial element is the grant of the enfeoffment by the lord to his man. At the beginning this was probably of stock and cattle as well as land. Hence its etymology. Littré makes the Low Latin feudum of Teutonic origin, and thus cognate with the Old High German fihu, Gothic faihu, Anglo-Saxon feoh (our fee), modern German vieh. That is to say the word goes back to the day when cattle was originally the only form of wealth; but it came by a perfectly natural process, when the race had passed from a nomadic life to the fixity of abode necessitated by pastoral pursuits, to signify wealth in general, and finally wealth in land. The cattle, stock, or land was therefore handed over by the lord to his dependent, to be held, not in full ownership, but in usufruct, on conditions originally personal but becoming hereditary. (This whole process can be easily traced in Hector Monroe Chadwick's "Studies in Anglo-Saxon Institutions", Cambridge, 1905, ix, 308-354; x, 378-411, where a detailed account is given of how the thegn, a personal servant of the king, developed into a landowner possessing an average of five hides of land and responsible to his sovereign in matters of war and jurisdiction). The influence of the Church, too, in this gradual transference of a personal to a territorial vassalage has been very generally admitted. The monastic houses would be the first to find it troublesome (Liber Eliensis, 275) to keep a rout of knights within their cloistral walls. Bishops, too, howsoever magnificent their palaces, could not fail to wish that the fighting men whom they were bound by their barony to furnish to the king should be lodged elsewhere than close to their persons. Consequently they soon developed the system of territorial vassalage. Hence the medieval legal maxim: nulle terre sans seigneur (Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, Oxford, 1908, ii, 39-89). This enfeoffment of the lord or landowner by the king and of the dependent by the lord was partly in the nature of a reward for past services, partly in the nature of an earnest for the future. It is this primitive idea of the lord who gives land to his supporter that is answerable for the feudal incidents which otherwise seem so tyrannous. For instance, when the vassal died, his arms, horse, military equipment reverted as heriot to his master. So, too, when the tenant died without heirs his property escheated to the lord. If, however, he died with heirs, indeed, but who were still in their minority, then these heirs were in wardship to the feudal superior, who could even dispose of a female ward in marriage to whom he would, on a plea that she might otherwise unite herself and lands to an hereditary enemy. All the way along it is clear that the ever present idea ruling and suggesting these incidents, was precisely a territorial one. The origin, that is, of these incidents went back to earlier days when all that the feudal dependent possessed, whether arms, or stock, or land he had received from his immediate lord. Land had become the tie that knit up into one the whole society. Land was now the governing principle of life (Pollack and Maitland, History of English Law, Cambridge, 1898, I, iii, 66-78). A man followed, not the master whom he chose or the cause that seemed most right, but the master whose land he held and tilled, the cause favored in the geographical limits of his domain. The king was looked up to as the real possessor of the land of the nation. By him, as representing the nation, baronies, manors, knight's fees, fiefs were distributed to the tenants-in-chief, and they, in turn, divided their land to be held in trust by the lower vassals (Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, 42). The statute of Edward I, known from its opening clause as Quia Emptores, shows the extreme lengths to which this subinfeudation was carried (Stubbs, Select Charters, 478). So much, however, had this territorial idea entered into the legal conceptions of the medieval polity, and been passed on from age to age by the most skillful lawyers of each generation, that, up to within the last half century, there were not wanting some who taught that the very peerages of England might descend, not by means of blood only, nor even of will or bequest, but by the mere possession-at-law of certain lands and tenements. Witness the Berkeley Peerage case of 1861 (Anson, Law and Customs of the Constitution, Oxford, 1897, Part I, I, vi, 200-203).

(2) Feudalism further implies the idea of vassalage. This is partly concurrent with, partly overlapping, the territorial conception. It is certainly prior to, more primitive than, the notion of a landed enfeoffment. The early banded hordes that broke over Europe were held together by the idea of loyalty to a personal chief. The heretogas were leaders in war. Tacitus says (Germania, vii): "The leaders hold command rather by the example of their boldness and keen courage than by any force of discipline or autocratic rule." It was the best, most obvious, simplest method, and would always obtain in a state of incessant wars and raids. But even when that state of development had been passed, the personal element, though considerably lessened, could not fail to continue. Territorial enfeoffment did not do away with vassalage, but only changed the medium by which that vassalage was made evident. The dependent was, as ever, the personal follower of his immediate lord. He was not merely holding land of that lord; the very land that he held was but the expression of his dependence, the outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible bond. The fief showed who the vassal was and to whom he owed his vassalage. At one time there was a tendency among historians to make a distinction between the theory of feudalism on the Continent and that introduced into England by William I. But a closer study of both has proved their identity (Tout, Eng. Hist. Rev., Jan., 1905, 141-143). The Salisbury Oath, even on the supposition that it was actually taken by "all the land owning men of account there were all over England" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ann. 1068), was nothing more than had been exacted by the Anglo-Saxon kings (Stubbs, Select Charters, Doom of Exeter, iv, 64; I, 67; but compare Vinogradoff, Growth of the Manor, Oxford, 1905, 294-306). In Germany, too, many of the lesser knights held directly of the emperor; and overall, whether immediately subject to him or not, he had, at least in theory, sovereign rights. And in France, where feudal vassalage was very strong, there was a royal court to which a dependent could appeal from that of his lord, as there were also royal cases, which none but the king could try. In fact it was perhaps in France, earlier than elsewhere, that the centralizing spirit of royal interference began to busy itself in social, economic, judicial interests of the individual. Besides, on the other hand, the anarchy of Stephen's reign that spread over the whole country (Davis, Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct. 1903) showed how slight even in England was the royal hold over the vassal barons. Moreover, if English feudalism did at all differ from the hierarchic vassalage that caused so much harm abroad, the result was due far more to Henry II and his successors than to the Norman line of kings. And even the work of the Angevins was to no small degree undone by the policy of Edward III. The Statutes of Merton (1278), Mortmain (1279), Quia Emptores (1290) all laid the foundations, though such, of course, was foreign to their object, for the aggregations of lage estates. Then came the marriage of the royal princes to great heiresses; the Black Prince gained the lands of Kent; Lionel, the dowry of Ulster; Thomas of Woodstock the linked manors of Eleanor Bohun. Henry IV, before he deposed Richard II, was "Harry of Hereford, Lancaster, and Derby", as well as Leicester and Lincoln. The result was that England, no less than France, Germany, Italy, and Spain had it's feudal vassals that acquired ascendency over the crown, or were only prevented by their mutual jealousy from doing so. In England, too, the substitution of a féodalité apanagée, or nobility of the blood royal, for the old féodalite territoriale worked the same mischief as it did in France; and the Wars of the Roses paralleled the fatal feuds of Burgundians and Armagnacs, the horrors of the Praguerie and the anarchy of the League of the Public Weal. It will be seen, therefore, that all over Europe the same feudal system prevailed of a hierarchic arrangement of classes, of some vast pyramid of which the apex, pushed high up and separated by intervening layers from its base, represented the king.

(3) Feudalism lastly included an idea of an immunity or grants of the profits of justice over a fief or other pieces of land (Vinogradoff, Eng. Soc. in the Eleventh Century, 177-207). We have already stated how by the land books the Anglo-Saxon kings (and the like had been done and was to be repeated all over the Continent) granted to others political ownership over certain territories that till that time had been in the medieval phrase, "doing their own law". The result was that, apparently, private courts were set up typified in England by the alliterative jingle "sac and soc, toll and theam, and infangenthef". Sometimes the lord was satisfied by merely taking the judicial forfeitures in the ordinary courts, without troubling to establish any of his own. But, generally speaking, he seems to have had the right and to have used it, of keeping his own separate courts. Feudalism, therefore, includes not merely service (military and economic) but also suit (judicial). This suit was as minutely insisted upon as was the service. The king demanded from his tenants-in-chief that they should meet in his curia regis. So William I had his thrice yearly crown-wearings, attended by "all the rich men over all England, archbishops and bishops, abbots and earls, thegns and knights" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ad ann, 1087). So too, in France there was the cour du roy, dating from the earliest Capetian times, the court of the king's demesne or immediate tenants; at this royal court, whether in England or in France, all the tenants-in-chief, at any rate in the days of the full force of feudalism, were obliged to attend. The same court existed in the Holy Roman Empire and was of great importance, at least till the death of Henry V (Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, London, 1904, viii, 120-129). All those who attended these courts did so in virtue of the tenurial obligations. Now, these royal councils were not constitutional bodies, for we have no evidence of any legislation by them. Rather, like the Parlement in France, they simply registered the royal edicts. But their work was judicial, adjudicating causes too numerous or too complicated for the king alone to deal with. So Phillip Augustus summoned John as a vassal prince to the cour du roy to answer the charge of the murder of Arthur of Brittany. Just as these royal courts were judicial bodies for dealing with questions relating to the tenants-in-chief, so these tenants-in-chief, and in a descending gradation ever y lord and master, had their private courts in which to try the cases of their tenants. The private criminal courts were not strictly feudal, but dependent on a royal grant; such were the franchises, or liberties, or regalities, as in the counties Palatine up and down Europe. Besides these however, there were the librae curiae, courts baron, courts leet, courts customary, and, in the case of the Church, courts Christian (for details, Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 571-594). The very complexity of these courts astonishes us; it astonished contemporaries no less, for Langland, in "Piers Plowman" (Passus III, ii, 318-319) looks forward to a golden day when

Church and Feudalism

The Church, too, had her place in the feudal system. She too was granted territorial fiefs, became a vassal, possessed immunities. It was the result of her calm, wide sympathy, turning to the new nations, away from the Roman Empire, to which many Christians thought she was irrevocably bound. By the baptism of Clovis she showed the baptism of Constantine had not tied her to the political system. So she created a new world out of chaos, created the paradox of barbarian civilization. In gratitude kings and emperors endowed her with property; and ecclesiastical property has not infrequently brought evils in its train. The result was disputed elections; younger sons of nobles were intruded into bishoprics, at times even into the papacy. Secular princes claimed lay investiture of spiritual offices. The cause of this was feudalism, for a system that had its basis on land tenure was bound at last to enslave a Church that possessed great landed possessions. In Germany, for example, three out of the mystically numbered seven electors of the empire were churchmen. There were, besides, several prince-bishops within the empire, and mitered abbots, whose rule was more extended and more powerful than that of many a secular baron. A s it was in Germany, so it was in France, England, Scotland, Spain, etc. Naturally there was a growing desire on the part of the king and the princes to force the Church to take her share in the national burdens and duties. Moreover, since by custom the secular rulers had obtained the right of presentation to various benefices or the right of veto, with the title on the Continent of advocates or vogt, the numerous claimants for the livings were only too ready to admit every possible demand of their lord, if only he would permit them to possess the bishopric, abbacy, or whatever else it might be. In short, the Church was in danger of becoming the annex of the State; the pope, of becoming the chaplain of the emperor. Simony and concubinage were rife. Then came the Reforms of Cluny and the remedy of the separation of Church and State, in this sense, that the Church would confer the dignity or office, and the State the barony. But even when this concordat had been arranged (in England between Henry I and Saint Anselm in 1107; the European settlement did not take place until 1122 at Worms), the Church still lay entangled with feudalism. It had to perform its feudal duties. It might owe suit and service to a lord. Certainly, lesser vassals owed suit and service to it. So it was brought into the secular fabric of society. A new tenure was invented for it, tenure by frankalmoyn. But it had more often than not to provide its knights and war-men, and to do justice to its tenants. The old ideal of a world-monarchy and a world-religion, the pope as spiritual emperor, the emperor as temporal pope, as set out with matchless skill in the fresco of the Dominican Church in Florence; S. Maria Novella, had ceased to influence public opinion long before Dante penned his "De Monarchia". Feudalism had shattered that ideal (Barry, in Dublin Review, Oct., 1907, 221-243). There was to be not so much a universal Church as a number of national Churches under their territorial princes, so that feudalism in the ecclesiastical sphere prepared the way for the Renaissance principle, Cujus regio, ejus religio. For while at the beginning the Church sanctified the State and anointed with sacred chrism the king vested in priestly apparel, in the end the State secularized the Church amid the gilded captivity of Avignon. Royal despotism followed the indignities of Anagni; the Church sank under the weight of her feudal duties.

Results

(1) Evil Results

(a) The State instead of entering into direct relations with individuals, entered into relation with heads of groups, losing contact with the members of those groups. With a weak king or disputed succession, these group-heads made themselves into sovereigns. First of all viewing themselves as sovereigns they fought with one another as sovereigns, instead of coming to the State as to the true sovereign to have their respective claims adjudicated. The result was what chroniclers called guerra, or private war (Coxe, House of Austria, I, London, 1807, 306-307). This was forbidden in England even under its mock form the tournament. Still, it was too much tangled with feudalism to be fully suppressed, breaking out as fiercely here from time to time as it did elsewhere.

(b) The group-heads tempted their vassals to follow them as against their overlords. So Robert of Bellesme obtained the help of his feudatories against Henry I. So Albert of Austria headed the electors against the Emperor Adolph of Nassau. So Charles of Navarre led his vassals against King John of France. So James of Urgel formed the Privileged Union of Saragossa.

(c) These group-heads claimed the right of private coinage, private castles, full judicial authority, full powers of taxation. There was always a struggle between them and their sovereigns, and between them and their lesser vassals as to the degree of their independence. Each manorial group, or honour, or fief endeavored to be self sufficient and to hold itself apart from its next overlord. Each overlord endeavored more and more to consolidate his domains and force his vassals to appeal to him rather than to their direct superior. This continual struggle, the success and failure of which depended on the personal characters of lord and overlord, was the chief cause of the instability of life in medieval times.

(d) A last evil may perhaps be added in the power given to the Church. In times of disputed succession the Church claimed the right to, defend herself, then to keep order, and eventually to nominate the ruler. This, however justifiable in itself and however at times beneficial, often drove the ecclesiastical order into the arms of one or other political party; and the cause of the Church often became identified with a particular claimant for other than Church reasons; and the penalties of the Church, even Excommunication were at times imposed to defend worldly interests. As a rule, however, the influence of the Church was directed to control and soften the unjust and cruel elements of the system.

(2) Good Results

(a) Feudalism supplied a new cohesive force to the nations. At the break-up alike of the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribal loyalty to the tribal chief, a distinct need was felt for some territorial organization. As yet the idea of nationality was non-existent, having indeed little opportunity of expression. How then were the peoples to be made to feel their distinct individuality? Feudalism came with its ready answer, linked Germanic with Roman political systems, built up an inter-connected pyramid that rested on the broad basis of popular possession and culminated in the apex of the king.

(b) It introduced moreover into political life the bond of legalitas. Every war of medieval, or rather feudal, times was based on some legal claim, since other casus belli there was none. Political expediency or national expansion were unknown doctrines. No doubt this legalitas as in the English claim to the French throne, often became sheer hypocrisy. Yet on the whole it gave a moral restraint to public opinion in the midst of a passionate age; and the inscription on the simp le tomb of Edward I: Pactum Serva, however at times disregarded by the king himself, still sums up the great bulwark raised inmedieval days against violence and oppression. To break the feudal bond was felony; and more, it was dishonor. On the side of the king or lord, there was the investiture by banner, lance, or other symbol; on the side of the man or tenant, homage for the land, sworn on bended knees with hands placed between the hands of the lord, the tenant standing upright while taking the fealty, as the sign of a personal obligation.

(c) Feudalism gave an armed force to Europe when she lay defenseless at the feet of the old mountains over which so many peoples had wandered to conquer the Western world. The onrush of Turk, Saracen, and Moor was checked by the feudal levy which substituted a disciplined professional force for the national fyrd or militia (Oman, Art of War, IV, ii, 357-377, London, 1898).

(d) From a modern point of view its most interesting advantage was the fact of its being a real, if only temporary, solution of the land question. It enforced a just distribution of the territorial domains included within the geographical limits of the nation, by allowing individuals to carve out estates for themselves on condition that each landlord, whether secular baron, churchman, even abbess, rendered suit and service to his overlord and demanded them in return from each and every vassal. This effectually taught the principle that owners of land, precisely as such, had to perform in exchange governmental work. Not that there was exactly land nationalization (though many legal and theological expressions of medieval literature seem to imply the existence of this), but that the nation was paid for its land by service in war and by administrative, judicial, and later, by legislative duties.

Decline of Feudalism

This was due to a multiplicity of causes acting upon one another. Since feudalism was based on the idea of land tenure paid for by governmental work, every process that tended to alter this adjustment tended also to displace feudalism.

(1) The new system of raising troops for war helped substitute money for land. The old system of feudal levy became obsolete. It was found impracticable for the lords to retain a host of knights at their service, waiting in idleness for the call of war. Instead, the barons, headed by the Church, enfeoffed these knights on land which they were to own on conditions of service. Gradually these knights, too, found military service exceedingly inopportune and commuted for it a sum of money, paid at first to the immediate lord, eventually demanded directly by the king. Land ceased to have the same value in the eyes of the monarch. Money took its place as the symbol of power. But this was further increased by a new development in military organization. The system by which sheriffs, by virtue of royal writs, summoned the county levy had taken the place of the older arrangements. These commissions of array, issued to the tenants-in-chief, or proclaimed for the lesser vassals in all courts, fairs, and markets, were now exchanged for indentures, by which the king contracted with individual earls, barons, knights, etc, to furnish a fixed number of men at a fixed wage ("They sell the pasture now to buy the horse." -- "Henry V", Prologue to Act II). The old conception of the feudal force had completely disappeared. Further, by means of artillery the attacking force completely dominated the defensive, fortified castles declined in value, archers and foot increased in importance, heavily armored knights were becoming useless in battle, and on the Continent the supremacy of harquebuses and pike was assured. Moreover, as part of this military displacement the reaction against livery and maintenance (cf. Lingard, History of England, IV, v, 139-140, London, 1854) must be noted. The intense evils occasioned all over Europe by this bastard feudalism, or feudalism in caricature, provoked a fierce reaction. In England and on the Continent the new monarchy that sprang from the "Three Magi" of Bacon stimulated popular resentment against the great families of king-makers and broke their power.

(2) A second cause of this substitution was the Black Death. For some years the emancipation of villeinage had, for reasons of convenience, been gradually extending. A system had grown up of exchanging tenure by rent for tenure by service, i.e. money was paid in exchange for service, and the lord's fields were tilled by hired laborers. By the Great Pestilence labor was rendered scarce and agriculture was disorganized. The old surplus population that had ever before (Vinogradoff in Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct.,1900, 775-781; April, 1906, 356) drifted from manor to manor no longer existed. The lords pursued their tenants; capital was begging from labor. All statutory enactments to chain labor to the soil proved futile. Villeins escaped in numbers to manors, not of their own lords, and entered into service, this time as hired laborers. That is, the lord became a landlord, the villein became a tenant farmer at will or a landless laborer. Then came the Peasant Revolt all over Europe, the economic complement of the Black Death, by which the old economy was broken up and from which the modern social economy began. On the Continent the result was the métayer system or division of national wealth among small landed proprietors. In England under stock and land leases the same system prevailed for close on a century, then disappeared, emerging eventually after successive ages as our modern "enclosed" agriculture.

(3) As in things military and economic, so also in things judicial the idea of landed administrative (sic) sinks below the horizon. All over Europe legal kings, Alphonso the Wise, Phillip the Fair, Charles of Bohemia, Edward I of England, were rearranging the constitutions of their countries. The old curia regis or cour du roy ceases to be a feudal board of tenants-in-chief and becomes, at first partly, then wholly, a body of legal advisors. The king's chaplains and clerks, with their knowledge of civil and canon law, able to spell out the old customaries, take the place of grim warriors. The Placita Regis or cas royaux get extended and simplified. Appeals are encouraged. Civil as well as criminal litigations come into the royal courts. Finance, the royal auditing of the accounts of sheriffs, bailiffs, or seneschals, increases the royal hold on the country, breaks down the power of the landed classes, and draws the king and peoples into alliance against the great nobles. The shape of society is no longer a pyramid but two parallel lines. It can no longer be represented as broadening down from king to nobles, from nobles to people; but the apex and base have withdrawn, the one from completing, the other from supporting the central block. The rise to power of popular assemblies, whether as States General, Cortes, Diets, or Parliaments, betokens the growing importance of the middle class (i.e. of the moneyed, not landed proprietors) is the overthrow of feudalism. The whole literature of the fourteenth century and onward witnesses to this triumph. Henceforward, to the Renaissance, it is eminently bourgeois. Song is no longer an aristocratic monopoly; it passes out into the whole nation. The troubadour is no more; his place is taken by the ballad writer composing in the vulgar tongue a dolce stil nuovo. This new tone is especially evident in "Renard le Contrefait" and "Branche des Royaux Lignage". These show that the old reverence for all that was knightly and of chivalry was passing away. The medieval theory of life, thought, and government had broken down.

Stubbs, Constitutional history (Oxford, 1897); Seebohm, English Village Community (London, 1883); Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (Cambridge, 1898); Maitland, Constitutional History, (Cambridge, 1908), 141-164; Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, (Oxford, 1908); Round, Feudal England, (London, 1895), 225-314; Baldwin, Scutage and Knight Service (Chicago, 1897); Roth, Geschichte des Beneficialwesens (Erlangen, 1850); Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte (Berlin, 1880); Lippert, Die deutchen Lehnbuecher (Leipzig, 1903); Rhamen, Die Grosshufen der Nordgermanen (Brunswick, 1905); Luchaire, Histoire des Institutions (Paris, 1883-85); Petit-Deutaillis, Histoire Constitutionelle (1907) tr. Rhodes, (1908); Seignobos in Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire General, II, (Paris, 1893), I, 1-64; Guilmeroz, Essai sur d'origine de la noblesse en France, (Paris, 1902); Flach, Les origines de l'Ancienne France, III (Paris, 1904).

BEDE JARRETT

Feuillants

The Cistercians who, about 1145, founded an abbey in a shady valley in the Diocese of Rieux (now Toulouse) named it Fuliens, later Les Feuillans or Notre-Dame des Feuillans (Lat. folium, leaf), and the religious were soon called Feuillants (Lat. Fulienses). Relaxations crept into the Order of Citeaux as into most religious congregations, and in the sixteenth century the Feuillant monastery was dishonoured by unworthy monks. A reform was soon to be introduced, however, by Jean de la Barrière, b. at Saint-Céré, in the Diocese of Cahors, 29 April, 1544; d. 25 April, 1600. Having completed a successful course in the humanities at Toulouse and Bordeaux, at the age of eighteen he was made commendatory Abbot of the Feuillants by the King of France, succeeding Charles de Crussol, who had just joined the Reformers. After his nomination he went to Paris to continue his studies, and then began his lifelong friendship with the celebrated Arnaud d'Ossat, later cardinal. In 1573 Barrière, having resolved to introduce a reform into his abbey, took the habit of novice, and after obtaining the necessary dispensations, made his solemn profession and was ordained priest, some time after 8 May, 1573. His enterprise was a difficult one. There were twelve monks at Les Feuillans who refused to accept the reform, and unmoved by the example and exhortations of their abbot, resolved to do away with him, by means of poison. Their attempts, however, were frustrated. In 1577, having received the abbatial benediction, he solemnly announced his intention of reforming his monastery, and made the members of the community understand that they had either to accept the reform or leave the abbey; they chose the latter and dispersed to various Cistercian houses. Their departure reduced the community to five persons, two professed clerics, two novices, and the superior. The rule was interpreted in its most rigid sense and in many ways even surpassed. Sartorius in his work "Cistercium bis-tertium" sums up the austerities of the reform in these four points: (1) The Feuillants renounced the use of wine, fish, eggs, butter, salt, and all seasoning. Their nourishment consisted of barley bread, herbs cooked in water, and oatmeal. (2) Tables were abolished; they ate on the floor kneeling. (3) They kept the Cistercian habit, but remained bare-headed and barefoot in the monastery. (4) They slept on the ground or on bare planks, with a stone for pillow. They slept but four hours. Silence and manual labour were held in honour. The community was increased rapidly by the admission of fervent postulants.

In 1581 Barrière received from Gregory XIII a Brief of commendation and in 1589 one of confirmation, establishing the Feuillants as a separate congregation. In spite of the opposition of the abbots and general chapters of Citeaux, the reform waxed strong. In 1587 Sixtus V called the Feuillants to Rome, where he gave them the church of S. Pudentiana, and the same year, Henry III, King of France, constructed for them the monastery of St. Bernard, in the Rue Saint-Honoré, Paris. In 1590, however, the Peasants' War brought about dissensions. While Barrière remained loyal to Henry III, the majority of his religious declared for the League. As a result, in 1592 Barrière was condemned as a traitor to the Catholic cause, deposed, and reduced to lay communion. It was not until 1600 that, through the efforts of Cardinal Bellarmine, he was exonerated and reinstated. Early in the same year, however, he died in the arms of his friend Cardinal d'Ossat. In 1595 Clement VIII exempted the reform from all jurisdiction on the part of Cistercian abbots, and allowed the Feuillants to draw up new constitutions, containing some mitigations of the primitive rigour. These were approved the same year. In 1598 the Feuillants took possession of a second monastery in Rome, San Bernardo alle Terme. In 1630 Pope Urban VIII divided the congregation into two entirely distinct branches: that of France, under the title of Notre-Dame des Feuillants; and that of Italy, under the name of Bernardoni or Reformed Bernardines. In 1634 the Feuillants of France, and in 1667 the Bernardines of Italy modified somewhat the constitutions of 1595. In 1791 at the time of the suppression of the religious orders, the Feuillants possessed twenty-four abbeys in France; almost all the religious were confessors, exiles, or martyrs. The Bernardines of Italy eventually combined with the Order of Citeaux. The congregation of the Feuillatns has given a number of illustrious personages to the Church, among others: Cardinal Bona, the celebrated liturgist and ascetical writer (d. 1674); Gabriele de Castello (d. 1687), general of the Italian branch, who also received the cardinal's hat; Dom Charles de Saint-Paul, first general of the Feuillants of France, afterwards Bishop of Avranche, who published in 1641 the "Geographia Sacra"; among theologians, Pierre Comagère (d. 1662), Laurent Apisius (d. 1681), and Jean Goulu (d. 1629). Special mention should be made of Carlo Giuseppe Morozzi (Morotius), author of the most important history of the order, the "Cistercii reflores centis … chronologica historia". Many martyrologies give Jean de la Berrière (25 April) the title of Venerable. The Abbey des Feuillants was authorized by papal Brief to publicly venerate his remains, but the cause of beatification has never been introduced.

The Feuillantines, founded in 1588 by Jean de la Barrière, embraced the same rule and adopted the same austerities as the Feuillants. Matrons of the highest distinction sought admission into this severe order, which soon grew in numbers, but during the Revolution, in 1791, the Feuillantines disappeared.

HÉlyot, Hist. des ordres (Paris, 1719); Caretto, Santorale del S. Ordine Cisterciense (Turin, 1708); Sartorius, Cistercium bis-tertium (Prague, 1700); Bazy, Vie du Vénérable Jean de la Barrière (Toulouse, 1885); Morotius, Cistercii reflorescentis … chronologica historia (Turin, 1690); Chalemot, Serie Sanctorum et Beatorum S. O. Cist. (Paris, 1670); Gallia Christiana, XIII; Janauschek, Orig. Cist. (Vienna, 1877); Voyage littéraire de deux religieux de la cong. de S. Maur in MartÈne and Durand (Paris, 1717); Jongelinus, Notitia abbatiarum Ord. Cist. (Cologne, 1640).

Edmond M. Obrecht.

Louis Feuillet

(FEUILLÉE)

Geographer, b. at Mane near Forcalquier, France, in 1660; d. at Marseilles in 1732. He entered the Franciscan Order and made rapid progress in his studies, particularly in mathematics and astronomy. He attracted the attention of members of the Academy of Sciences and in 1699 was sent by order of the king on a voyage to the Levant with Cassini to determine the geographical positions of a number of seaports and other cities. The success of the undertaking led him to make a similar journey to the Antilles. He left Marseilles, 5 Feb., 1703, and arrived at Martinique 11 April. A severe sickness was the cause of considerable delay, but in September of the following year he began a cruise along the northern coast of South America, making observations at numerous ports. He likewise collected a number of botanical specimens. Upon his return to France in 1706, his work won recognition from the Government, and he immediately began preparations for a more extended voyage along the western coast of South America to continue his observations. He received the title of royal mathematician, and armed with letters from the ministry set sail from Marseilles, 14 Dec., 1707. He rounded Cape Horn after a tempestuous voyage and visited the principal western ports as far north as Callao. At Lima he spent several months studying the region. He returned to France in 1711, bringing with him much valuable data and a collection of botanical specimens. Louis XIV granted him a pension and built an observatory for him at Marseilles. Feuillet was of a gentle and simple character, and while an enthusiastic explorer, was also a true ecclesiastic. He was the author of "Journal des observations physiques, mathématiques, et botaniques" (Paris, 1714); "Suite du Journal" (Paris, 1725).

HENRY M. BROCK

Paul-Henri-Corentin Féval

Novelist, b. at Rennes, 27 September, 1817; d. in Paris, 8 March 1887. He belonged to an old family of barristers, and his parents wished him to follow the family traditions. He received his secondary instruction at the lycée of Rennes and studied law at the university of the same city. He was admitted to the bar at the age of nineteen, but the loss of first case disgusted him with the practice of law, and he went to Paris, where he secured a position as a bank clerk. His fondness for reading which caused him to neglect his professional duties, led to his dismissal a few months later. He is next found in the service of an advertising concern, then then on the staff of an obscure Parisian paper, and finally as proof-reader in the offices of "Le Nouvelliste." He had already begun to write. A short story, "Le club des Phoques", which he published in "La Revue de Paris", in 1841, attracted attention and opened to Féval the columns of the most important Parisian newspapers. In 1844, under the pseudonym of Francis Trolopp, he wrote "Les mystères de Londres", which had great success and was translated into several languages. From this time on he hardly ever censed writing, sometimes publishing as many as four novels at a time. Some of them he also tried to adapt for stage but, with the exception of "Le Bossu" which had played many times, his ventures in that direction were unsuccessful. Féval's writings had not always been in conformity with the teachings of the Church. In the early seventies he sincerely returned to his early belief, and between 1877 and 1882 published a revised edition of all his books. He also wrote some new works which show the change. His incessant labour and the financial reverses he had suffered told on his constitution; he was stricken with paralysis. The Société des Gens de Letteres, of which he was the president, had him placed in the home of Les Frères de Jean de Dieu, where he died.

Most of Féval's novels are romantic; in fact he may be considered as the best imitator of the elder Dumas; his fecundity, his imagination, and his power of interesting the reader rival those of his great predecessor; the style, however, too often betrays the haste in which his novels were written. The list of his works is a very long one; the best known besides those already mentioned are: "Etapes d' une conversion" (Paris, 1877); "Merveilles du Mont-Saint-Michael" (Paris, 1879).

PIERRE MARQUE

Benito Jerónimo Feyjóo y Montenegro

A celebrated Spansh writer, b. at Casdemiro, in the parish of Santa Maria de Molias, Galicia, Spain, 8 October, 1676, d. at Oviedo, 26 September, 1764. Intended by his parents for a literary career, he showed from a very early age a predilection for ecclesiastical studies, and in 1688 received the cowl of the Order of St. Benedict at the monastery of San Juan de Samos. A man of profound learning, Feyjóo wrote on a great variety of subjects, embracing nearly every branch of human knowledge. In his writings he attacked many old institutions, customs, superstitions. He criticized, among other things, the system of public instruction in Spain, offering suggestions for reforms; and it was owing to his agitation that many universities adopted new and better methods of teaching logic, physics, and medicine. He naturally stirred up many controversies and was the object of bitter attacks, but he was not without his supporters and defenders. In his long life he wrote many works, the full list of which may be found in Vol. LVI of "La Biblioteca de Autores Españoles" (Madrid, 1883). The subjects may be conveniently grouped as follows: arts, astronomy and geography; economics, philosophy and metaphysics; philology; mathematics and physics; cultural history; literature, history, medicine. Nearly all are included in the eight volumes which bear the title "Teatro crítico universal ó discursos varios en todo género de materias para desengaño de errores comunes" (Madrid, 1726-39) and in the five volumes of his "Cartas Eruditas" (Madrid, 1742-60). During the life of the author his works were translated into French, Italian, German, and after his death into English. At his death Feyjóo was laid to rest in the church of San Vicente at Oviedo. A fine statue in his memory ornaments the entrance to the National Library at Madrid.

VENTURA FUENTES

St. Fiacc

(Lived about 415-520.) A poet, chief bishop of Leinster, and founder of two churches. His father, MacDara, was prince of the Hy-Bairrche in the country around Carlow. His mother was sister of Dubhtach, the chief bard and brehon of Erin, the first of Patrick's converts at Tara, and the apostle's lifelong friend. Fiacc was a pupil to his uncle in the bardic profession and soon embraced the Faith. Subsequently, when Patrick came to Leinster, he sojourned at Dubhtach's house in Hy-Kinsellagh and selected Fiacc, on Dubhtach's recommendation, to be consecrated bishop for the converts of Leinster. Fiacc was then a widower; his wife had recently died, leaving him one son named Fiacre. Patrick gave him an alphabet written with his own hand, and Fiacc acquired with marvellous rapidity the learning necessary for the episcopal order. Patrick consecrated him, and in after time appointed him chief bishop of the province. Fiacc founded the church of Domnach-Fiech, east of the Barrow. Dr. Healy identifies its site at Kylebeg. To this church Patrick presented sacred vestments, a bell, the Pauline Epistles and pastoral staff. After many years of austere life in this place, Fiacc was led by angelic command to remove to the west of the Barrow, for there "he would find the place of his resurrection". The legends state that he was directed to build his oratory where he should meet a hind, his refectory where he should find a boar. He consulted Patrick, the latter fixed the site of his new church at Sletty--"the highland"--a mile and a half northwest of Carlow. Here while built a large monastery, which he ruled as abbot while at the same time he governed the surrounding country as bishop. His annual Lenten retreat to the cave of Drum-Coblai and the rigours of his Lenten fast, on five barley loaves mixed with ashes, are mentioned in his life by Jocelyn of Furness. He suffered for many years from a painful disease and Patrick, commiserating his infirmity, sent him a chariot and a pair of horses to help him in the visitation of the diocese. He lived to a very old age; sixty of his pious disciples were gathered to their rest before him. His festival ha been always observed on the 12th of October. He was buried in his own church at Sletty, his son Fiacre, whom Patrick had ordained priest, occupying the same grave. They are mentioned in several calendars as jointly revered in certain churches.

St. Fiacc is the reputed author of the metrical life of St. Patrick in Irish, a document of undoubted antiquity and of prime importance as the earliest biography of the saint that has come down to us. A hymn on St. Brigid, "Audite virginis laudes", has been sometimes attributed to him, but on insufficient grounds.

C. MULCAHY

St. Fiacre

Abbot, born in Ireland about the end of the sixth century; died 18 August, 670. Having been ordained priest, he retired to a hermitage on the banks of the Nore of which the townland Kilfiachra, or Kilfera, County Kilkenny, still preserves the memory. Disciples flocked to him, but, desirous of greater solitude, he left his native land and arrived, in 628, at Meaux, where St. Faro then held episcopal sway. He was generously received by Faro, whose kindly feelings were engaged to the Irish monk for blessings which he and his father's house had received from the Irish missionary Columbanus. Faro granted him out of his own patrimony a site at Brogillum (Breuil) surrounded by forests. Here Fiacre built an oratory in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a hospice in which he received strangers, and a cell in which he himself lived apart. He lived a life of great mortification, in prayer, fast, vigil, and the manual labour of the garden. Disciples gathered around him and soon formed a monastery. There is a legend that St. Faro allowed him as much land as he might surround in one day with a furrow; that Fiacre turned up the earth with the point of his crosier, and that an officious woman hastened to tell Faro that he was being beguiled; that Faro coming to the wood recognized that the wonderworker was a man of God and sought his blessing, and that Fiacre henceforth excluded women, on pain of severe bodily infirmity, from the precincts of his monastery. In reality, the exclusion of women was a common rule in the Irish foundations. His fame for miracles was widespread. He cured all manner of diseases by laying on his hands; blindness, polypus, fevers are mentioned, and especially a tumour or fistula since called "le fic de S. Fiacre".

His remains were interred in the church at Breuil, where his sanctity was soon attested by the numerous cures wrought at his tomb. Many churches and oratories have been dedicated to him throughout France. His shrine at Breuil is still a resort for pilgrims with bodily ailments. In 1234 his remains were placed in a shrine by Pierre, Bishop of Meaux, his arm being encased in a separate reliquary. In 1479 the relics of Sts. Fiacre and Kilian were placed in a silver shrine, which was removed in 1568 to the cathedral church at Meaux for safety from the destructive fanaticism of the Calvinists. In 1617 the Bishop of Meaux gave part of the saint's body to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and in 1637 the shrine was again opened and part of the vertebrae given to Cardinal Richelieu. A mystery play of the fifteenth century celebrates St. Fiacre's life and miracles. St. John of Matha, Louis XIII, and Anne of Austria were among his most famous clients. He is the patron of gardeners. The French cab derives its name from him. The Hôtel de St-Fiacre, in the Rue St-Martin, Paris, in the middle of the seventeenth century first let these coaches on hire. The sign of the inn was an image of the saint, and the coaches in time came to be called by his name. His feast is kept on the 30th of August.

C. MULCAHY

Marsilio Ficino

A philosopher, philologist, physician, b. at Florence, 19 Oct., 1433; d. at Correggio, 1 Oct, 1499. Son of the physician of Cosmo de' Medici, he served the Medicis for three generations and received from them a villa at Monte Vecchio. He studied at Florence and at Bologna; and was specially protected in his early work by Cosmo de' Medici, who chose him to translate the works of Plato into Latin. The Council of Florence (1439) brought to the city a number of Greek scholars, and this fact, combined with the founding of the Platonic Academy, of which Ficino was elected president, gave an impetus to the study of Greek and especially to that of Plato. Ficino became an ardent admirer of Plato and a propagator of Platonism, or rather neo-Platonism, to an unwarranted degree, going so far as to maintain that Plato should be read in the churches, and claiming Socrates and Plato as fore-runners of Christ. He taught Plato in the Academy of Florence, and it is said he kept a light burning before a bust of Plato in his room. It is supposed that the works of Savonarola drew Ficino closer to the spirit of the Church. He was ordained priest in 1477 and became a canon of the cathedral of Florence. His disposition was mild, but at times he had to use his knowledge of musle to drive away melancholy. His knowledge of medicine was applied very largely to himself, becoming almost a superstition in its detail. As a philologist his worth was recognized and Renchlin sent him pupils from Germany. Angelo Poliziano was one of his pupils.

As a translator his work was painstaking and falthful, though his acquaintance with Greek and Latin was by no means perfect. He translated the "Argo-nautica", the "Orphic Hymns", Homer's "Hymns", and Hesiod's "Theogony"; his translation of Plato appeared before the Greek text of Plato was published. He also translated Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, Iamblichus, Alcinous, Synesius, Psellus, the "Golden Thoughts" of Pythagoras, and the works of Dionysius the Areopagite. When a young man he wrote an "Introduction to the Philosophy of Plato"; his most important work was "Theologia Platonica de animarum lmmortalitate" (Florence, 1482); a shorter form of this work is found in his "Compendium theologiae Platonicae". He respects Aristotle and calls St. Thomas the "glory of theology"; yet for him Plato is the philosopher. Christianity, he says, must rest on philosophic grounds; in Plato alone do we find the arguments to support its claims, hence he considers the revival of Plato an intervention of Providence. Plato does not stop at immediate causes, but rises to the highest cause, God, in Whom he sees all things. The Philosophy of Plato is a logical outcome of previous thought, beginning with the Egyptians and advancing step by step till Plato takes up the mysteries of religion and casts them in a form that made it possible for the neo-Platonist to set them forth clearly. The seed is to be found in Plato, its full expression in the neo-Platonists. Ficino follows this line of thought in speaking of the human soul, which he considered as the image of the God-head, a part of the great chain of existence coming forth from God and leading back to the same source, giving us at the same time a view of the attributes of God of his relations to the world. His style is not always clear. Perhaps his distinctive merit rests on the fact that he introduced Platonic philosophy to Europe. Besides the works already mentioned, he left: "De religione Christiana et fidei pietate", dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici; "In Epistolas Pauli commentaria", Marsilii Ficini Epistolae (Venice, 1491; Florence, 1497). His collected works: Opera (Florence,1491, Venice, 1516, Basel, 1561).

M. SCHUMACHER

Julius Ficker

(More correctly Caspar von Ficker).

Historian, b. at Paderborn, Germany, 30 April, 1826; d. at Innsbruck, 10 June, 1902. He studied history and law at Bonn, Münster, and Berlin, and during 1848-49 lived in Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he was closely associated with the noted historian, Bohmer who proved himself a generous friend and patron. In 1852 he proceeded to Bonn, but shortly afterwards accepted an invitation from Count Leo Thun, the reorganizer of the Austrian system of education, to settle at Innsbruck as professor of general history. In 1863, however, he joined the faculty of jurisprudence, and his lectures on political and legal history drew around him a large circle of devoted and admiring pupils. In 1866 he was elected member of the Academy of Sciences, but retired, after being ennobled by the Emperor of Austria, in 1879. His numerous and important works extend over three branches of scientific history (i.e. political and legal history and the science of diplomacy), and in each division he discovered new methods of investigation. Among his writings those of especial note are: "Rainald von Dassel, Reichskanzler und Erzbischof von Köln" (Cologne, 1850); "Münsterische Chroniken des Mittelalters" (Münster, 1851); "Engelbert der Heilige, Erzbischof von Köln" (Cologne, 1853); "Die Ueberreste des deutschen Reichsarchivs in Pisa" (Vienna, 1855). The second division of his works includes "Ueber einen Spiegel deutscher Leute" (Vienna, 1857); "Uber die Entstehungszeit des Sachsenspiegels" (Innsbruck 1859); "Vom Reichsfürstenstande" (Innsbruck, 1861); "Forschunzen zur Reichs-u. Rechtsgeschichte Italiens" (4 vols, Innsbruck, 1868-74); "Untersuchunsgen zur Rechtsgeschichte" (3 vols., Innsbruck, 1891-97). Finally he proved himself a master in diplomatics in his "Beiträge zur Urkundenlehre" (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1877-78). During the period 1859-1866, he was engaged in a literary controversy with the historian, Heinrich von Sybel, on the significance of the German Empire. Ficker advocated and defended the theory that Austria, on account of its blending of races, was best fitted as successor of the old empire to secure the political advancement both of Central Europe and of Germany. In support of his theory, he wrote "Das deutsche Kaiserreich in seinen universalen und nationalen Beziehungen" (Innsbruck, 1871), and "Deutsches Königtum und Kaisertum" (Innsbruck, 1872). As legatee of Bohmer's literary estate, he published the "Acta Imperii selecta" (lnnsbruck, 1870) and directed the completion and revision of the "Regesta Imperii".

PATRICUS SCHLAGER

Fideism

(Latin fides, faith).

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

Fideism has divers degrees and takes divers forms, according to the field of truth to which it is extended, and the various elements which are affirmed as constituting the authority. For some fideists, human reason cannot of itself reach certitude in regard to any truth whatever; for others, it cannot reach certitude in regard to the fundamental truths of metaphysics, morality, and religion, while some maintain that we can give a firm supernatural assent to revelation on motives of credibility that are merely probable. Authority, which according to fideism is the rule of certitude, has its ultimate foundation in divine revelation, reserved and transmitted in all ages through society and manifested by tradition, common sense or some other agent of a social character. Fideism was maintained by Huet, Bishop of Avranches, in his work "De imbecillitate mentis humanae" (Amsterdam, 1748); by de Bonald, who laid great stress on tradition in society as the means of the transmission of revelation and the criterion of certitude; by Lamennais, who assigns as a rule of certitude the general reason (la raison générale) or common consent of the race (Défense de l'essai sur l'indifférence, chs. viii, xi); by Bonnetty in "Annales de philosophie chrétienne"; by Bautain, Ventura, Ubaghs, and others at Louvain. These are sometimes called moderate fideists, for, though they maintained that human reason is unable to know the fundamental truths of the moral and religious orders, they admitted that, after accepting the teaching of revelation concerning them, human intelligence can demonstrate the reasonableness of such a belief. (cf. Ubaghs, Logicae seu Philosophiae rationalis elementa, Louvain, 1860).

In addition to these systematic formulae of fideism, we find throughout the history of philosophy from the time of the sophists to the present day a fideistic attitude of mind, which became more or less conspicuous at different periods. Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other. Such is the position taken by Kant, when he distinguishes between pure reason, confined to subjectivity, and practical reason, which alone is able to put us by an act of faith in relation with objective reality. It is also a fideistic attitude which is the occasion of agnosticism, of positivism, of pragmatism and other modern forms of anti-intellectualism. As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d'Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: "Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God"; and "The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it." The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer's naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that "one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made" (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, "Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.", Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806).

As to the opinion of those who maintain that our supernatural assent is prepared for by motives of credibility merely probable, it is evident that it logically destroys the certitude of such an assent. This opinion was condemned by Innocent XI in the decree of 2 March, 1679 (cf. Denzinger, n. 1171), and by Pius X in the decree "Lamentabili sane" n. 25: "Assensus fidei ultimo innititur in congerie probabilitatum" (The assent of faith is intimately based on a sum of probabilities). Revelation, indeed, is the supreme motive of faith in supernatural truths, yet, the existence of this motive and its validity has to be established by reason. No one will deny the importance of authority and tradition or common consent in human society for our knowledge of natural truths. It is quite evident that to despise the teaching of the sages, the scientific discoveries of the past, and the voice of common consent would be to condemn ourselves to a perpetual infancy in knowledge, to render impossible any progress in science, to ignore the social character of man, and to make human life intolerable: but, on the other hand, it is an error to make these elements the supreme criteria of truth, since they are only particular rules of certitude, the validity of which is grounded upon a more fundamental rule. It is indeed true that moral certitude differs from mathematical, but the difference lies not in the firmness or validity of the certainty afforded, but in the process employed and the dispositions required by the nature of the truths with which they respectively deal. The Catholic doctrine on this question is in accord with history and philosophy. Rejecting both rationalism and fideism, it teaches that human reason is capable (physical ability) of knowing the moral and religious truths of the natural order; that it can prove with certainty the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and can acknowledge most certainly the teaching of God; that, however, in the present conditions of life, it needs (of moral necessity) the help of revelation to acquire a sufficient knowledge of all the natural truths necessary to direct human life according to the precepts of natural religion (Conc. Vatic., "De Fide Cath.", cap. ii; cf. St. Thomas, "Cont. Gent.", Lib. I, c, iv). PERRONE, Praelectiones theologicae, vol. I: De ver Religione; OLLE-LAPRUNE, De la Certitude Morale (5th ed., Paris, 1905); MERCIER, Crit riologie g n rale (4th ed., Louvain, 1900), III, ch. i; JOHN RICKABY, The First Principles of Knowledge (4th ed., London, 1901), chs. xii, xiii.

G.M. SAUVAGE

St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen

Born in 1577, at Sigmaringen, Prussia, of which town his father Johannes Rey was burgomaster; died at Sevis, 24 April, 1622. On the paternal side he was of Flemish ancestry. He pursued his studies at the University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, and in 1604 became tutor to Wilhelm von Stotzingen, with whom he travelled in France and Italy. In the process for Fidelis's canonization Wilhelm von Stotzingen bore witness to the severe mortifications his tutor practised on these journeys. In 1611 he returned to Freiburg to take the doctorate in canon and civil law, and at once began to practise as an advocate. But the open corruption which found place in the law courts determined him to relinquish that profession and to enter the Church. He was ordained priest the following year, and immediately afterwards was received into the Order of Friars Minor of the Capuchin Reform at Freiburg, taking the name of Fidelis. He has left an interesting memorial of his novitiate and of his spiritual development at that time in a book of spiritual exercises which he wrote for himself. This work was re-edited by Father Michael Hetzenauer, O.F.M. Cap., and republished in 1893 at Stuttgart under the title: "S. Fidelis a Sigmaringen exercitia seraphicae devotionis". From the novitiate he was sent to Constance to finish his studies in theology under Father John Baptist, a Polish friar of great repute for learning and holiness. At the conclusion of his theological studies Fidelis was appointed guardian first of the community at Rheinfelden, and afterwards at Freiburg and Feldkirch. As a preacher his burning zeal earned for him a great reputation.

From the beginning of his apostolic career he was untiring in his efforts to convert heretics nor did he confine his efforts in this direction to the pulpit, but also used his pen. He wrote many pamphlets against Calvinism and Zwinglianism though he would never put his name to his writings. Unfortunately these publications have long been lost. Fidelis was still guardian of the community at Feldkirch when in 1621 he was appointed to undertake a mission in the country of the Grisons with the purpose of bringing back that district to the Catholic Faith. The people there had almost all gone over to Calvinism, owing partly to the ignorance of the priests and their lack of zeal. In 1614 the Bishop of Coire had requested the Capuchins to undertake missions amongst the heretics in his diocese, but it was not until 1621 that the general of the order was able to send friars there. In that year Father Ignatius of sergamo was commissioned with several other friars to place himself at the disposal of this bishop for missionary work, and a similar commission was given to Fidelis who however still remained guardian of Feldkirche. Before setting out on this mission Fidelis was appointed by authority of the papal nuncio to reform the Benedictine monastery at Pfafers. He entered upon his new labours in the true apostolic spirit. Since he first entered the order he had constantly prayed, as he confided to a fellow-friar, for two favours: one, that he might never fall into mortat sin; the other, that he might die for the Faith. In this Spirit he now set out, ready to give his life in preaching the Faith. He took with him his crucifix, Bible, Breviary, and the book of the rule of his order; for the rest, he went in absolute poverty, trusting to Divine Providence for his daily sustenance. He arrived in Mayenfeld in time for Advent and began at once preaching and catechizing; often preaching in several places the same day. His coming aroused strong opposition and he was frequently threatened and insulted. He not only preached in the Catholic churches and in the public streets, but occasionally in the conventicles of the heretics. At Zizers one of the principal centres of his activity, he held conferences with the magistrates and chief townsmen, often far into the night. They resulted in the conversion of Rudolph de Salis, the most influential man in the town, whose public recantation was followed by many conversions.

Throught the winter Fidelis laboured indefatigably and with such success that the heretic preachers were seriously alarmed and set themselves to inflame the people against him by representing that his mission was political rather than religious and that he was preparing the way for the subjugation of the country by the Austrians. During the Lent of 1622 he preached with especial fervour. At Easter he returned to Feldkirch to attend a chapter of the order and settle some affairs of his community. By this time the Congregation of the Propaganda had been established in Rome, and Fidelis was formally constituted by the Congregation, superior of the mission in the Grisons. He had, however, a presentiment that his laborers would shortly be brought to a close by a martyr's death. Preaching a farewell sermon at Feldkirch he said as much. On re-entering the country of the Grisons he was met everywhere with the cry: "Death to the Capuchins!" On 24 April, being then at Grusch, he made his confession and afterwards celebrated Mass and preached. Then he set out for Sevis. On the way his companions noticed that he was particularly cheerful. At Sevis he entered the church and began to preach, but was interrupted by a sudden tumult both within and without the church. Several Austrian soldiers who were guarding the doors of the church were killed and Fidelis himself was struck. A Calvinist present offered to lead him to a place of security. Fidelis thanked the man but said his life was in the hands of God. 0utside the church he was surrounded by a crowd led by the preachers who offered to save his life if he would apostatize. Fidelis replied: "I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it", whereupon he was struck down. He was the first martyr of the Congregation of Propaganda. His body was afterwards taken to Feldkirch and buried in the church of his order, except his head and left arm, which were placed in the cathedral at Coire. He was beatified in 1729, and canonized in 1745. St. Fidelis is usually represented in art with a crucifix and with a wound in the head; his emblem is a bludgeon. His feast is kept on 24 April.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Fiesole

DIOCESE OF FIESOLE (FÆSULANA).

Diocese in the province of Tuscany, suffragan of Florence. The town is of Etruscan origin, as may be seen from the remains of its ancient walls. In pagan antiquity it was the seat of a famous school of augurs, and every year twelve young men were sent thither from Rome to study the art of divination. Sulla colonized it with veterans, who afterwards, under the leadership of Manlius, supported the cause of Catiline. Near Fiesole the Vandals and Suevi under Radagaisus were defeated (405) by hunger rather than by the troops of Stilicho. During the Gothic War (536-53) the town was several times besieged. In 539 Justinus, the Byzantine general, captured it and razed its fortifications. In the early Middle Ages Fiesole was more powerful than Florence in the valley below, and many wars arose between them. In 1010 and 1025 Fiesole was sacked by the Florentines, and its leading families obliged to take up their residence in Florence.

According to local legend the Gospel was first preached at Fiesole by St. Romulus, a disciple of St. Peter. The fact that the ancient cathedral (now the Abbazia Fiesolana) stands outside the city is a proof that the Christian origins of Fiesole date from the period of the persecutions. The earliest mention of a Bishop of Fiesole is in a letter of Gelasius I (492-496). A little later, under Vigilius (537-55), a Bishop Rusticus is mentioned as papal legate at one of the Councils of Constantinople. The legendary St. Alexander is said by some to belong to the time of the Lombard King Autari (end of the sixth century), but the Bollandists assign him to the reign of Lothair (middle of the ninth century). A very famous bishop is St. Donatus, an Irish monk, the friend and adviser of Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothair. He was elected in 826 and is buried in the cathedral, where his epitaph, dictated by himself, may still be seen. He founded the abbey of San Martino di Mensola; Bishop Zanobi in 890 founded that of St. Michael at Passignano, which was afterwards given to the Vallombrosan monks. Other bishops were Hildebrand of Lucca (1220), exiled by the Florentines; St. Andrew Corsini (1352), born in 1302 of a noble Florentine family, and who, after a reckless youth, became a Carmelite monk, studied at Paris, and as bishop was renowned as a peacemaker between individuals and States. He died 6 January, 1373, and was canonized by Urban VIII. Other famous bishops were the Dominican Fra Jacopo Altovita (1390), noted for his zeal against schism; Antonio Aglio (1466), a learned humanist and author of a collection of lives of the saints; the Augustinian Guglielmo Bachio (1470), a celebrated preacher, and author of commentaries on Aristotle and on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard; Francesco Cataneo Diaceto (1570), a theologian at the Council of Trent and a prolific writer; Lorenzo della Robbia (1634), who built the seminary. Among the glories of Fiesole should be mentioned the painter Lorenzo Monaco (1370-1424). But the greatest name associated with the history of the city is that of Blessed Giovanni Angelico, called da Fiesole (1387-1455). His baptismal name was Guido, but, entering the convent of the Reformed Dominicans at Fiesole, he took the name of Giovanni in religion; that of Angelico was afterwards given to him in allusion to the beauty and purity of his works.

The Cathedral of St. Romulus was built in 1028 by Bishop Jacopo Bavaro with materials taken from several older edifices; it contains notable sculptures by Mino da Fiesole. The old cathedral became a Benedictine abbey, and in course of time passed into the hands of the regular canons of Lateran. It once possessed a valuable library, long since dispersed. The abbey was closed in 1778. The diocese has 254 parishes and 155,800 souls. Within its limits there are 12 monasteries of men, including the famous Vallombrosa, and 24 convents for women.

The principal holy places of Fiesole are: (1) the cathedral (Il Duomo), containing the shrine of St. Romulus, martyr, according to legend the first Bishop of Fiesole, and that of his martyred companions, also the shrine of St. Donatus of Ireland; (2) the Badia or ancient cathedral at the foot of the hill on which Fiesole stands, supposed to cover the site of the martyrdom of St. Romulus; (3) the room in the bishop's palace where St. Andrew Corsini lived and died; (4) the little church of the Primerana in the cathedral square, where the same saint was warned by Our Lady of his approaching death; (5) the church of S. Alessandro, with the shrine of St. Alexander, bishop and martyr; (6) the monastery of S. Francesco on the crest of the hill, with the cells of St. Bernardine of Siena and seven Franciscan Beati; (7) S. Girolamo, the home of Venerable Carlo dei Conti Guidi, founder of the Hieronymites of Fiesole (1360); (8) S. Domenico, the novice-home of Fra Angelico da Fiesole and of St. Antoninus of Florence; (9) Fontanelle, a villa near S. Domenico where St. Aloysius came to live in the hot summer months, when a page at the court of Grand Duke Francesco de' Medici; (10) Fonte Lucente, where a miraculous crucifix is greatly revered. A few miles distant is (11) Monte Senario, the cradle of the Servite Order, where its seven holy founders lived in great austerity and were cheered at their death by the songs of angels; also (12) S. Martino di Mensola, with the body of St. Andrew, an Irish saint, still incorrupt.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1846), XVII, 7-72; AMMIRATO, Gli Vescovi di Fiesole (Florence, 1637); PHILLIMORE, Fra Angelico (London, 1881).

U. BENIGNI

Francisco de Figueroa

A celebrated Spanish poet, surnamed "the Divine", b. at Alcalá de Henares, c. 1540, d. there, 1620. Little is known of his life except that he was of noble family, received his education at the University of Alcalá, and followed a military career for a time, taking part in campaigns in Italy and Flanders. From a very early age Figueroa showed unusual poetical talent, and his poems are full of fire and passion. His work first attracted attention in Italy, where he resided for a time, but it was not long before he had earned a brilliant reputation in his own country. Following in the footsteps of Boscan Almogaver and Garcilaso, to whose school he belonged, he wrote pastoral poems in the Italian metres, and was one of the first Spanish poets who used with much success blank verse, which had been introduced by Boscan in 1543. His best-known and most likely praised work is the eclogue "Tirsis", written entirely in blank verse. He was highly praised by Cervantes in his "Galatea". It is unfortunate that but a small part of the works of this brilliant poet have reached us, the greater portion having been burned by his direction just before his death. A small part, however, was preserved and published by Louis Tribaldos de Toledo, at Lisbon in 1625. They were reprinted in 1785 and again in 1804. The best of Figueroa's works appear in "La Biblioteca de Auctores Españoles" of Rivadeneira, vol XLII.

TICKNOR, History of Spanish Literature (3 vols., New York, 1849).

VENTURA FUENTES

Francisco García de la Rosa Figueroa

Franciscan, b. in the latter part of the eighteenth century at Toluca, in the Archdiocese of Mexico; date of death unknown. Figueroa possessed extraordinary administrative powers and for more than forty years directed the affairs of his order with singular prudence and ability, being lector emeritus of his order, prefect of studies of the college of Tlaltelulco, superior of general convents, definitor, custodian, twice provincial of the province of Santo Evangelio, and visitor to the other provinces of New-Spain. He was much beloved by the people and highly esteemed by the viceroys and bishops. On 21 Feb., 1790, a royal order was received directing that all documents shedding light on the history of New Spain should be copied and sent to Spain, the order designating in some instances special documents which were wanted. D. Juan Vincente de Guemes Pacheco de Padilla, second Count of Revillagigedo, viceroy from 1789 to 1794, entrusted to Father Figueroa the work od selecting, arranging, and copying these manuscripts. To this task Father Figueroa brought such marvellous activity and rare judgment, both in selecting the material and the copyists, that in less than three years he turned over to the Government thirty-two folio volumes of almost a thousand pages each, in duplicate, containing copies of original documents collected from the archives of convents and private collections, for the most part almost forgotten, and of greatest value for the knowledge of political and ecclesiastical history of the provinces. Such a collection contained quite inevitably some material not of the first importance; there were documents of all kinds, but the collection as a whole was one of great value. One copy, which was sent to Spain and examined by the chronicler Muñoz, is preserved in the Academia de Historia; the other was kept in Mexico in the Secretaría del Virreinado, and from there was transferred to the general archives of the Palacio Nacional where it is still kept. The first volume of this was missing, but about 1872 a copy of it was made from that preserved in Madrid. To the original thirty-two volumes another was added, compiled years afterwards by some Franciscans, which contains a minute index of the contents of the work. Two other copies of the thirty-two volumes were found; one is in Mexico, the property of Senor Agueda, and the other in the United States in the H.H. Bancroft collection.

As this work of Figueroa's has never been published it may be of interest to summarize the contents of the different volumes. They are as follows: I. Thirty fragments from the Museo de Boturini, among them four letters from Father Salvatierra. II. Treatise on political virtues by D. Carlos Sigüenza; life and matyrdom of the children of Tlaxcala; narrative of Mexico by Father Geronimo Salmeron, Father Velez, and others. III. Report of Father Posadas on Texas; three fragments on ancient history, Canticles of Netzahualcoyotl, etc. IV. Narrative of Ixtlixochitl. V-VI. Conquest of the Kingdom of New Galicia by D. Matías de la Mota Padilla. VII-VIII. Introduction to the history of Michoacán. IX-X-XI. Chronicle of Michoacán by Fray Pablo Beaumont. XII. Mexican Chronicle by D. Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc. XIII. History of the Chichimces by Ixtlilxochitl. XIV. Reminiscences of the City of Mexico. Reminiscences for tlie history of Sinaloa. XVI-XVII. Notes for the history of Sonora. XVIII. Important letters to elucidate the history of Sonora and Snaloa. XIX-XX. Documents for the history of New vizcaya (Durango). XXI. Establishment and progress of the Missions of Old California. XXII-XXIII. Notes on New California. XXIV. Log-book kept by the Fathers Garcés, Barbastro, Font, and Capellio; voyage of the frigate "Santiago"; "Diario" of Urrea and of D.J.B. Anza, etc. XXV-XXVI. Documents for the ecclesiastical and civil history of New Mexico. XXVII-XXVIII. Documents for the civil and ecclesiastical history of the Province of Texas. XXIX. Documents for the history of Coahuila and Central Mexico (Seno Mexicano). XXX. Tampico, Rio Verde, and Nuevo León. XXXI. Notes on the cities of Vera Cruz, Cordova, Oaxaca, Puebla, Tepotzotlan, Querétaro, Guanajuato, Guadalajara, Zacatecas, Nootka. XXXII. Pious reminiscences of the Indian nation.

CAMILLUS CRIVELLI

Franscesco Filelfo

A humanist, b. at Tolentino, 25 July, 1398; d. at Florence 31 July, 1481. He studied grammar, rhetoric, and Latin literature at Padua, where he was appointed professor at the age of eighteen. In 1417 he was invited to teach eloquence and moral philosophy at Venice, where the rights citizenship were conferred upon him. Two years later he was appointed secretary tot he Venetian consul-general at Constantinople. Arriving there in 1420, he at once began the study of Greek under John Chrysoloras, whose daughter he afterwards married, and he was received with great favour by the Emperor John Palaeologus, by whom he was employed on several important diplomatic missions. In 1427, receiving an invitation to the chair of eloquence at Venice, Filelfo returned there with a great collection of Greek books. The following year he was called to Bologna and in 1429 to Florence, where he was received with the greatest enthusiasm. During his five years residence there he engaged in numerous quarrels with the Florentine scholars and incurred the hatred of the Medici, so that in 1434 he was forced to leave the city. He went to Siena and later to Milan, where he was welcomed by Filippo Maria Visconti, who showered honours upon him. Some years later, after Milan had been forcibly entered by Francesco Storza, Filelfo wrote a history of Storza's life in a Latin epic poem of sixteen books, called the "Storziad". In 1474 he left Milan to accept a professorship at Rome, where, owing to a disagreement with Sixtus IV, he did not remain long. He went back to Milan, but left there in 1481 to teach Greek at Florence, having long before become reconciled with the Medici. He died in poverty only a fortnight after his arrival. The Florentines buried him in the church of the Annunziata. Filelfo was the most restless of all the humanists, as is indicated by the number of places at which he taught. He was a man of indefatigable activity but arrogant, rapacious, fond of luxury, and always ready to assail his literary rivals. His writings include numerous letters (last ed. by Legrand, Paris, 1892), speeches (Paris, 1515), and satires (Venice, 1502); besides many scattered pieces in prose, published under the title "Convivia Mediolanensia", and a great many Latin translations from the Greek. In both these languages he wrote with equal fluency.

SYMONDS, Renaissance in Italy (New York, 1900), II: The Revival of Learning; ROSMINI, Vita di Fr. Filelfo (3 vols., Milan, 1808); VOIGT, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums (Berlin, 1893), I; SANDYS, History of Classified Scholarship, (Cambridge, 1908), I, 55-57.

EDMUND BURKE

Filial Church

(Latin filialis, from filia, daughter), a church to which is annexed the cure of souls, but which remains dependent on another church. As this dependence on the mother church may be of various degrees, the term filial church may have naturally more than one signification as to minor details. Ordinarily, a filial church is a parish church which has been constituted by the dismemberment of an older parish. Its rector is really a parish priest, having all the essential rights of such a dignity, but still bound to defer in certain accidental matters to the pastor of the mother church. The marks of deference required are not so fixed that local custom may not change them. Such marks are: obtaining the baptismal water from the mother church, making a moderate offering of money (fixed by the bishop) to the parish priest of the mother church annually, and occasionally during the year assisting with his parishioners in a body at services in the older church. In some places this last includes a procession and the presentation of a wax candle. If the filial church has been endowed from the revenues of the mother church, the parish priest of the latter has the right of presentation when a pastor for the dependent church is to be appointed.

This term is also applied to churches established within the limits of an extensive parish, without any dismemberment of the parochial territory. The Pastor of such a filial church is really only a curate or assistant of the parish priest of the mother church, and he is removable at will, except in cases where he has a benefice. The parish priest may retain to himself the right of performing baptism, assisting at marriages and similar offices in the filial church, or he may ordain that such functions be performed only in the parish church, restricting the services in the filial church to Mass and Vespers. In practice, however, the curates of such filial churches act as parish priests for their districts, although by canon law the dependence upon the pastor of the mother church remains of obligation, though all outward manifestation of subjection has ceased.

In the union of two parishes in the manner called "union by subjection", the less important of the parish churches may sink into a condition scarcely distinguisable from that of a filial church and be comprehended under this term. In other words, the parish priest may govern such a church by giving it over to one of his assistants. It is true that the subjected church does not lose its parochial rights, yet its dependence on the parish priest of another church and its administration by a vicar has led to its being included loosely under the designation filial church. Historically, this term has also been applied to those churches, often in different countries, founded by other and greater churches. In this sense the great patriarchical Sees of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople established many filial churches which retained a special dependence upon the church founding them. The term Mother Church, however, as applied to Rome, has a special significance as indicating its headship of all churches.

WILLIAM H. W. FANNING

Vincenzo da Filicaja

Lyric poet; born at Florence, 30 December, 1642; died there 24 September, 1707. At Pisa he was trained for the legal profession, which he later pursued, but during his academic career he devoted no little attention to philosophy, literature, and music. Returning to Florence, he was made a member of the Accademia della Crusca and of the Arcadia, and enjoined the patronage of the illustrious convert to the Catholic faith, Christina, ex-Queen of Sweden, who with her purse helped to lighten his family burdens. A lawyer and magistrate of integrity, he never attained wealth. His probity and ability, however, were acknowledged by those in power, and he was appointed to several public offices of great trust. Thus, already a senator by the nomination of Grand Duke Cosmo III, he was chosen governor of Volterra in 1696, and of Pisa in 1700, and then was given the important post of Segretario delle Tratte at Florence. An ardent Catholic, he not infrequently gives expression to his religious feeling in his lyrics, which, even though they may not entitle him to rank among the greatest of Italian poets, will always attract attention because of their relative freedom from the literay vices of the time, the bombast, the exaggerations and obscurity of Marinism. Notable among his compositions are the odes or canzoni, which deal with the raising of the siege of Vienna by John Sobieski, when in 1683 it was beleaguered by the Turks, and the sonnets in which he bewails the woes of Italy whose beauty had made her the object of foreign cupidity and whose sons were incapable of fighting for her and could only enlist mercenaries to defend her. The most famous of the sonnets is perhaps the "Italia, Italia, O tu cui feo la sorte", which Byron rendered with skill in the fourth canto of Chide Harold. Some letters, elogi, orazioni, and Latin carmina, constitute the rest of his literary output. After the death of Filicaja, an edition of the "Poesie toscane", containing the lyrics, was given to the world by his son (Florence, 1707); a better edition is that of Florence, 1823; selected poems are given in "Lirici del secolo XVII", published by Sonzogno.

J.D.M. FORD

Filioque

Filioque is a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance. On the one hand, it expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; on the other, it was the occasion of the Greek schism. Both aspects of the expression need further explanation.

I. DOGMATIC MEANING OF FILIOQUE

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration. The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy; it doesnot seem to have assumed any serious proportions, as the question was not connected with the characteristic teaching of the Monothelites. In the Western church the first controversy concerning the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was conducted with the envoys of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, in the Synod of Gentilly near Paris, held in the time of Pepin (767). The synodal Acts and other information do not seem to exist. At the beginning of nineth century, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed. In the second half the same century, Photius the successor of the unjustly deposed Ignatius, Patriarch of Constatinople (858), denied the Procession of Holy Ghost from the Son, and opposed the insertion of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan creed. The same position was maintained towards the end of the tenth century by the Patriarchs Sisinnius and Sergius, and about the middle of the eleventh century by the Patriarch Michael Caerularius, who renewed and completed the Greek schism. The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even to-day the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

As to the Sacred scripture, the inspired writers call the holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, ll). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33,; Tit., iii.6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., iii. 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26). Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, St. John (XVI, 13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expresssed: the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Ep. XV, c. i (447); the so-called Athanasian Creed; several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI); the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521); St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655; Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795; The Synods of Merida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680); the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem; the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii; the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054); the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the council of Florence, 1439. Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the nineth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

• First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the son and Father [St. Basil, Ep. cxxv; Ep. xxxviii (alias xliii) ad Gregor. fratrem; "Adv.Eunom.", I, xx, III, sub init.]
• Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athan., Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; "De Incarn.", ix; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", v, in P.G.., XXIX, 731; cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. xliii, 9).
• Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Greg. Thaumat., "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufius, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphan., Haer., c. lxii, 4; Greg. Nyss. Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", ass. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John, xv, 26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

II. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FILIOQUE

It has been seen that the Creed of Constantinople at first declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father; it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589. It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths. In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it. The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed. The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papel advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15). The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day. It is a matter for surprise that so abstract a subject as the doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost should have appealed to the imagination of the multitude. But their national feelings had been aroused by the desire of liberation from the rule of the ancient rival of Constantinople; the occasion of lawfully obtaining their desire appeared to present itself in the addition of Filioque to the Creed of Constantinople. Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)? It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. (See HOLY GHOST and CREED.)

A. J. MAAS

Guillaume Fillastre (Philastrius)

French cardinal, canonist, humanist, and geographer, b. 1348 at La Suze, Maine, France; d. at Rome, 6 November, 1428. After graduating as doctor juris utriusque, Fillastre taught jurisprudence at Reims, and in 1392 was appointed dean of its metropolitan chapter. During the Western Schism he showed at first much sympathy for Benedict XIII (Peter de Luna). In 1409, however, he took part in the attempt to reconcile the factions at the Council of Pisa. John XXIII conferred on him and his friend d'Ailly the dignity of cardinal (1411), and in 1413 he was made Archbishop of Aix. Fillastre took a very important part in the Council of Constance, where he and Cardinal d'Ailly were the first to agitate the question of the abdication of the rival claimants (February, 1415). He won special distinction through the many legal questions on which he gave decisions. Martin V, in whose election he had been an important factor, appointed him legatus a latere to France (1418), where he was to promote the cause of Church unity. In recognition of his successful efforts in this capacity, he was made Archpriest of the Lateran Basilica. In 1421 he resigned the See of Aix, and in 1422 was assigned to the See of Saint-Pons-de-Thomières. He died at Rome in his eightieth year, as Cardinal-Priest of San Marco.

During the Council of Constance Fillastre kept a diary discovered by Heinrich Finke, first reviewed by him in the "Römische Quartalschrift" (1887), and there partly edited by him. It is the most important historical source for the Council of Constance, and was edited by Finke in its entirety in 1889 (in his "Forschungen und Quellen", see below, 163-242). Fillastre's notes throw new light on the principal participants in the council, as well as on the two popes who were deposed and their trial, on the college of cardinals as a body, and in particular on Cardinals d'Ailly, Fillastre, Zabarella, etc. Fillastre is our only authority concerning the preliminary motions on the method of voting and the extremely difficult position of the college of Cardinals; he gives us our first clear conception of the quarrels that arose among the "nations" over the matter of precedence, and the place which the Spanish "nation" held at the council; he also furnishes the long-sought explanation of the confirmation of Sigismund as Holy Roman Emperor by Martin V. Fillastre's diary derives its highest value, however, from the exposition of the relations between the king and the council and the description of the conclave.

While Fillastre was in Constance (where, it may be remarked, he translated several of Plato's works into Latin), he rendered important services to the history of geography and cartography, as well as to the history of the council. Thus he had copied the Latin translation of Ptolemy's geography (without maps), which had been completed by Jacobus Angelus in 1409, a manuscript he had great difficulty in securing from Florence. Together with this precious Ptolemy codex, he sent in 1418 to the chapter-library of Reims, which he had founded and already endowed with many valuable manuscripts, a large map of the world traced on walrus skin, and a codex of Pomponius Mela. The two geographical codices are still preserved as precious "cimelia" in the municipal library of Reims, but the map of the world unfortunately disappeared during the eighteenth century.

About 1425 Fillastre wrote one of his most important canonical works on interest and usury; it has been handed down in numerous manuscripts. In 1427, though now an old man, he was as indefatigible as ever, and had the maps of Ptolemy drawn from a Greek original, but on a diminished scale, and arranged with Latin terminology, to go with his Latin Ptolemy. Since Ptolemy had no knowledge of the Scandinavian Peninsula, much less of Greenland, Fillastre completed his codex by adding to Ptolemy's ten maps of Europe an eleventh. This "eleventh map of Europe", with the subjoined detailed description of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Greenland, is the only existing copy of the "first map" of Claudius Clavus, "the first cartographer of America". This precious cartographic treasure is still preserved in the municipal library of Nancy.

      Marlot, Metropolis remensis historia (Reims, 1679), II, 693 sqq.; AlbanÈs, Gallia Christ. (novissima) (1899), I, 96 sqq.; Finke, Forschungen und Quellen zur Geschichte des Konstanzer Konzils (Paderborn, 1889), 73 sqq.; Storm, Den danske geogr. Claudius Clavus (Stockholm, 1891), 129 sqq.; Fischer, Discoveries of the Norsemen (London, 1903), 58 sqq., 83 sqq.; BjÖrnbo and Petersen, Claudius Clavus (Innsbruck, 1908).

Joseph Fischer

Vincenzo Filliucci

Jesuit moralist; b. at Sienna, Italy, 1566; d. at Rome 5 April, 1622. Having entered the Society of Jesus at the age of eighteen and made the usual course in classics, science, philosophy, and theology, he professed philosophy and mathematics for some years, and later became rector of the Jesuit college in his native city. Being summoned to Rome to fill the chair in moral theology in the Roman College, he taught there for ten years with great distinction. Paul V appointed him penitentiary of St. Peter's, a post he filled until his death in the following pontificate. Fillucci's greatest work, "Moralium Quæstionem de Christianis Officiis et Causibus Conscientiæ Tomi Duo", appeared in 1622, together with a posthumous "Appendix, de Statu Clericorum", forming a third volume, has frequently been reprinted in several counties of Europe. A "Synopsis Theologiæ Moralis", which likewise appeared posthumously in 1626, went through numerous editions. Fillucci is also known for his excellent "Brevis Instructio pro Confessionibus Excipiendis" (Ravensburg, 1626); this work is generally published as an appendix in all subsequent editions of his "Synopsis." Besides these published works, there is a manuscript, "Tractis de Censuris", preserved in the archives of the Roman College. As an authority in moral theology, Fr. Fillucci has ever been accorded high rank, though this did not save him from the attacks of the Jansenists. The "Provincial Letters" of Pascal, and "Les Extraits des Assertions" makes much capital out of their garbled quotations from his writings; while, in the anti-Jesuit tumult of 1762, the "parlement" of Bordeaux forbade his works, and the "parlement" of Rouen burnt them, together with twenty-eight other works by Jesuit authors.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., III, 735; IX, 340; de Backer, Bibl des Ecrevains de la Comp. de Jesu, I, 308; Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius, I, 364.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Felix Filliucius

(Or, as his name is more often found, in its Italian form, FIGLIUCCI).

An Italian humanist, a philosopher, and theologian of note, was b. at Siena about the year 1525; supposed to have d. at Florence c. 1590. He completed his studies in philosophy at Padua and was for a time in the service of Cardinal Del Monte, afterwards Julius III. In spite of the fact that he gained a great reputation as an orator and poet, and had a wide knowledge of Greek, no mention of his name is found in such standard works on the Renaissance as Burchardt, Voigt (Die Wiederbelebung des class. Alterthums), and Belloni (Il Seicento). After having enjoyed the pleasures of the worldly life at the court in 1551 he entered the Dominican convent at Florence, where he assumed the name Alexus. His works are both original in Italian and translations into that language from the Greek. Worthy of mention are: "Il Fedro, ovvero del bello" (Rome, 1544); "Delle divine lettere del gran Marsilio Ficino" (Venice, 1548); "Le undici Filippiche di Demostene dichiarate" (Rome, 1550); "Della Filosofia morale d'Aristotile" (Rome, 1551); "Della Politica, ovvero Scienza civile secondo la dottrina d'Aristotile, libri VIII scritti in modo di dialogo" (Venice, 1583). Filliucius attended the Council of Trent, where he delivered a remarkable Latin oration and, at the order of St. Pius V, translated into Italian, under his cloister name of Alexus, the Latin Catechism of the Council of Trent (Catechismo, cioe istruzione secondo il decreto del concilio di Trento, Rome, 1567), often reprinted.

JOSEPH DUNN

St. Finan

Second Bishop of Lindisfarne; died 9 February, 661. He was an Irish monk who had been trained in Iona, and who was specially chosen by the Columban monks to succeed the great St. Aidan (635-51). St. Bede describes him as an able ruler, and tells of his labours in the conversion of Northumbria. He built a cathedral "in the Irish fashion", employing "hewn oak, with an outer covering of reeds", dedicated to St. Peter. His apostolic zeal resulted in the foundation of St. Mary's at the mouth of the River Tyne; Gilling, a monastery on the sight where King Oswin had been murdered, founded by Queen Eanfled, and the great abbey of Streanaeshalch, or Whitby. St. Finan (Finn-án -- little Finn) converted Peada, son of Penda, King of the Middle Angles, "with all his Nobles and Thanes", and gave him four priests, including Diuma, whom he consecrated Bishop of Middle Angles and Mercia, under King Oswy. The breviary of Aberdeen styles him "a man of venerable life, a bishop of great sanctity, an eloquent teacher of unbelieving races, remarkable for his training in virtue and his liberal education, surpassing all his equals in every manner of knowledge as well as in circumspection and prudence, but chiefly devoting himself to good works and presenting in his life, a most apt example of virtue".

In the mysterious ways of Providence, the Abbey of Whitby, his chief foundation, was the scene of the famous Paschal controversy, which resulted in the withdrawal of the Irish monks from Lindisfarne. The inconvenience of the two systems -- Irish and Roman -- of keeping Easter was specially felt when on one occasion King Oswy and his Court were celebrating Easter Sunday with St. Finan, while on the same day Queen Eanfled and her attendants were still fasting and celebrating Palm Sunday. Saint Finan was spared being present at the Synod of Whitby. His feast is celebrated on the 9th of February.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

St. Finbarr

(Lochan, Barr).

Bishop and patron of Cork, born near Bandon, about 550, died at Cloyne, 25 September, 623, was son of Amergin. He evangelized Gowran, Coolcashin, and Aghaboe, and founded a school at Eirce. For some years he dwelt in a hermitage at Gougane Barra, where a beautiful replica of Cormac's chapel has recently been erected in his honour. Finbarr was buried in the cathedral he built where Cork city now stands. He was specially honoured also at Dornoch and Barra, in Scotland. There are five Irish saints of this name. (See CORK.)

Life by Walsh (New York, 1864); Banba (Dublin), 207.

A.A. MACERLEAN

Ven. John Finch

A martyr, b. about 1548; d. 20 April, 1584. He was a yeoman of Eccleston, Lancashire, and a member of a well-known old Catholic family, but he appears to have been brought up in schism. When he was twenty years old he went to London where he spent nearly a year with some cousins at Inner Temple. While there he was forcibly struck by the contrast between Protestantism and Catholicism in practice and determined to lead a Catholic life. Failing to find advancement in London he returned to Lancashire where he was reconciled to Catholic Church. He then married and settled down, his house becoming a centre of missionary work, he himself harbouring priests and aiding them in every way, besides acting as catechist. His zeal drew on him the hostility of the authorities, and at Christmas, 1581, he was entrapped into bringing a priest, George Ostliffe, to a place where both were apprehended. It was given out that Finch, having betrayed the priest and other Catholics, had taken refuge with the Earl of Derby, but in fact, he was kept in the earl's house as a prisoner, sometimes tortured and sometimes bribed in order to pervert him and induce him to give information. This failing, he was removed to the Fleet prison at Manchester and afterwards to the House of Correction. When he refused to go to the Protestant church he was dragged there by the feet, his head beating on the stones. For many months he lay in a damp dungeon, ill-fed and ill-treated, desiring always that he might be brought to trial and martyrdom. After three years' imprisonment, he was sent to be tried at Lancaster. There he was brought to trial with three priests on 18 April, 1584. He was found guilty and, 20 April, having spent the night in converting some condemned felons, he suffered with Ven. James Bell at Lancaster. The cause of his beatification with those of the other English Martyrs was introduced by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 Dec., 1886.

EDWIN BURTON

Ven. John Finglow

An English martyr; b. at Barnby, near Howden, Yorkshire; executed at York, 8 August, 1586. He was ordained priest at the English College, Reims, 25 March, 1581, whence the following month he was sent on the English mission. After labouring for some time in the north of England, he was seized and confined in Ousebridge Kidcote, York, where for a time he endured serious discomforts, alleviated slightly by a fellow-prisoner. He was finally tried for being a Catholic priest and reconciling English subjects to the ancient Faith, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

F.M. RUDGE

Grand Duchy of Finland

A department or province of the Russian Empire; bounded on the north by Norway, on the west by Sweden and the Gulf of Bothnia, on the south by the Gulf of Finland. Its limits extend from about 60° to 70° N. lat., and from about 19° to 33° E. long.; the area is 141,617 sq. miles. Finland abounds in lakes and forests, buit the proportion of arable soil is small. The population numbers 2,900,000 souls, chiefly Finns; the coasts are inhabited by the descendants of Swedish settlers.

Up to the beginning of the twelfth century the people were pagans, about this date efforts for the conversion of the Finns were made from two sides. The Grand Duke of Novgorod, Vassievolodovich, sent Russian missionaries to the Karelians, Finns living on the Lake of Ladoga in east Finland, While in 1157 King Erik of Sweden undertook a crusade to Finland. Erik established himself firmly on the south-western coast and from this base extended his power. Henrik, Bishop of Upsala, who had accompanied Erik on this expedition, devoted himself to preaching the Gospel and suffered the death of a martyr in 1158. His successor, Rodulfus, met the same fate about 1178, while the next following bishop, Folkvin, died a natural death. Finland attained an independent church organization under Bishop Thomas (1220; d. 1248), whose see was Räntemäkai; at a later date the episcopal residence was transferred to Åbo. The successors of Thomas were: Bero I (d. 1258); Ragvald I (1258-66); Kettil (1266-86); Joannes I (1286-90); Magnus I (1290-1308), who was the first Finn to become bishop; he transferred the see to Åbo; Ragvald II (1309-21); Bengt (1321-38); Hemming (1338- 66), who made wise laws, built numerous churches, began the collection of a library, and died in the odour of sanctity; in 1514 his bones were taken up, the relics now being in the museum of the city of Åbo, but he was not canonized; Henricus Hartmanni (1366-68); Joannes II Petri (1368-70); Joannes III Westfal (1370-85), a bishop of German descent; Bero II (1385- 1412); Magnus II Olai Tavast (1412-50), the most important prince of the Church of Finland, who, when eighty-eight years old, undertook arduous visitations; he also went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land whence he brought back objects of art and manuscripts; Olaus Magni (1450-60), who in earlier years was twice rector of the Sorbonne, a college of the University of Paris, and was also procurator and bursar of the "English nation" at the university. As representative of these he settled the disagreement between Charles VII and the university arising from the part the latter had taken in the burning of Joan of Arc; Conrad I Bitz (1460-89), who in 1488 had the "Missale ecclesiæ Åboensis" printed; Magnus III Stjernkors (1489-1500); Laurentius Suurpää (1500-06); Joannes IV Olavi (1506-10); Arvid Kurck (1510-20), who was drowned in the Baltic; Ericus Svenonis (1523), the chancellor of King Gustavus Vasa; this prelate resigned the see as his election was not confirmed by Rome. He was the last Catholic Bishop of Finland. The king now, on his own authority, appointed his favourite, the Dominican Martin Skytte, as bishop; Skytte did all in his power to promote the violent introduction of Lutheranism. The people were deceived by the retention of Catholic ceremonies; clerics and monks were given the choice of apostasy, expulsion, or death. The only moderation shown was that exhibited towards the Brigittine nunnery of Nidendal. But on the other hand, the Dominicans at Åbo and Viborg, and the Franciscans at Kökars were rudely driven out and apparently the inmates of the monastery of Raumo were hung. Then, as later, the Church of Finland did not lack martyrs, among them being Jöns Jussoila, Peter Ericius, and others.

By the end of the sixteenth century the Catholic Church of Finland may be said to have ceased to exist. In its place appeared an inflexible and inquisitorial Lutheranism. When in 1617 Karelia (East Finland) fell to Sweden, an effort was made to win the native population, which belonged to the Greek Orthodox Church, for the "pure Gospel". As this did not succeed, the war of 1566-68 was used for the massacre and expulsion of the people. In consequence of the victories of Peter the Great matters after a while took another course; in 1809 Russia became the ruler of Finland and the Orthodox Greek Church has of late grown in strength. It numbers now 50,000 members under an archbishop; it has fine church buildings, especially in Helsingfors, wealthy monasteries (Valaam and Konevetz), a church paper published at Viborg, and numerous schools. Under Russian sovereignty the long repressed Catholic Church received again (1869 and 1889) the right to exist, but it is still very weak, and numbers only about 1000 souls; there are Catholic churches at Åbo and Helsingfors. The great majority of the inhabitants belong now, as before, to the various sects of Protestantism. The State Church of former times, now the "National" Church, to which the larger part of the population adhere, is divided into four dioceses: Åbo, Kuopio, Borgå, and Nyslott; these contain altogether 45 provostships and 512 parishes. The finest of its church buildings are the domed church of St. Nicholas at Helsingfors and the church at Åbo, formerly the Catholic cathedral. Education is provided for by a university and technical high school at Helsingfors, by lyceums of the rank of gymnasia, modern scientific schools, and primary schools. Finland has a rich literature both in Swedish and Finnish. Besides the followers of Christianity there are both Jews and Mohammedans in Finland, but they have no civil rights. Since the middle of the nineteenth century about 200,000 Finns have emigrated to the United States, settling largely in Minnesota and Michigan. The town of Hancock, Michigan, is the centre of their religious and educational work.

Windy, Finland as It Is (New York, 1902); Nordisk Familjebok, VIII, Pts. III-IV; Sveriges historia (Stockholm, 1877-81), VI; Phipps, The Grand Duchy of Finland (London, 1903); Schybergoon, Finlands historia (1903), II; Styffe, Skandinavien under unionstiden (Stockholm, 1880); Leinberg, Det odelade Finska Biskopsstiftets Herdamiñe (Jyäfskylä, 1894); Idem, De Finska Klostrens historia (Helsingfors, 1890); Idem, Skolstaten inuvarande Åbostift (Jyväskylä, 1893); Idem, Finska studerande vid utrikes universiteter före 1640 (Helsingfors, 1896); Idem, Om Finska studerande i Jesuitkollegier (Helsingfors, 1890); Retzius, Finlandi i Nordiska Museet (Stockholm, 1881); Allgemeine Weltgefrühesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1873); Schweitzer, Geschichte der skandinavischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1885), III; Neher in Kirchenlex., s. v. Finnland; Konversationslex., s. v. Finland; Baumgartner, Nordische Fahrten, II; Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire générale (Paris, 1893-1901), XII; Galitzin, La Finlande (Paris, 1852), II; Brockhaus and Ephron, Konversationslexikon; Statesman's Year Book (London, 1908), 1462-66).

P. Witmann

St. Finnian of Moville

Born about 495; died 589. Though not so celebrated as his namesake of Clonard, he was the founder of a famous school about the year 540. He studied under St. Colman of Dromore and St. Mochae of Noendrum (Mahee Island), and subsequently at Candida Casa (Whithern), whence he proceeded to Rome, returning to Ireland in 540 with an integral copy of St. Jerome's Vulgate. St. Finnian's most distinguished pupil at Moville (County Down) was St. Columba, whose surreptitious copying of the Psaltery led to a very remarkable sequel. What remains of the copy, together with the casket that contains it, is now in the National Museum, Dublin. It is known as the Cathach or Battler, and was wont to be carried by the O'Donnells in battle. The inner case was made by Cathbar O'Donnell in 1084, but the outer is fourteenth-century work. So prized was it that family of MacGroarty were hereditary custodians of this Cathach, and it finally passed, in 1802, to Sir Neal O'Donnell, County Mayo. St. Finnian of Moville wrote a rule for his monks, also a penitential code, the canons of which were published by Wasserschleben in 1851. His festival is observed on 10 September.

Colgan, Acta Sanct. Hib. (Louvain, 1645); O'Laverty, Down and Connor (Dublin, 1880), II; O'Hanlon, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, s.d.); Healy, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1902); Hyde, Lit. Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1901).

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Joseph M. Finotti

Born at Ferrara, Italy, 21 September, 1817; died at Central City, Colorado, 10 January, 1879.

In 1833 the young Finotti was received into the Society of Jesus in Rome, and for several years taught and studied in the colleges of the order in Italy. He was one of the recruits whom Fr. Ryder, in 1845, brought from Europe to labour in the Maryland Province. After his ordination at Georgetown, D.C., Fr. Finotti was appointed pastor of St. Mary's Church, Alexandria, Virginia, and given charge of outlying missions in Maryland and Virginia. In 1852 he left the Society of Jesus and went to Boston. For many years he held the position of literary editor of "The Pilot", while acting as pastor of Brookline and later of Arlington, Massachusetts.

The last few years of his life he spent in the West, becoming, in 1877, pastor of Central City, Colorado, and retaining charge of that parish up to the time of his death.

Fr. Finotti was a great book lover, giving much time to literary pursuits and displaying special interest in the Catholic literary history of America. Among his literary productions are, "Month of Mary", 1853, which reached a sale of 50,000 copies; "Life of Blessed Paul of the Cross", 1860; "Diary of a Soldier", 1861; "The French Zouave", 1863; "Herman the Pianist", 1863; "Works of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary"; "Life of Blessed Peter Claver", etc. Most of these publications were translated or edited by him.

His best-known work, never completed, is his "Bibliographica Catholica Americana" which took years of study and care. It was intended to be a catalogue of all the Catholic books published in the United States, with notices of their authors, and epitomes of their contents. The first part, which brings the list down to 1820 inclusive, was published in 1872; the second volume, which was to include the works of Catholic writers from 1821 to 1875, was never finished, though much of the material for it had been industriously gathered from all available sources.

His last literary effort, which he did not live to see published, entitled "The Mystery of Wizard Clip" (Baltimore, 1879), is a story of preternatural occurrences at Smithfield, West Virginia, which is partly told in the life of Father Gilitzin.

Illustrated Catholic Family Almanac, 1880; biographical Sketch in MS., Georgetown College archives; McGee's Weekly, Feb. 15, 1879; Ave Maria, Feb., 1879; Sommervogel, II, 747.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Sts. Fintan

St. Fintan of Clonenagh

A Leinster saint, b. about 524; d. 17 February, probably 594, or at least before 597. He studied under St. Columba of Terryglass, and in 550 settled in the solitude of the Slieve Bloom Mountains, near what is now Maryborough, Queen's County. His oratory soon attracted numerous disciples, for whom he wrote a rule, and his austerities and miracles recalled the apostolic ages. Among his pupils was the great St. Comgall of Bangor. When he attained his seventieth year he chose Fintan Maeldubh as his successor in the Abbey of Clonenagh. He has been compared by the Irish annalists to St. Benedict, and is styled "Father of the Irish Monks".

St. Fintan (Munnu) of Taghmon

Son of Tulchan, an Ulster saint, d. at Taghmon, 636. He founded his celebrated abbey at Taghmon (Teach Munnu) in what is now County Wexford, in 599. He is principally known as the defender of the Irish method of keeping Easter, and, in 630, he attended the Synod of Magh Lene, at which he dissented from the decision to adopt the Roman paschal method. Another synod was held somewhat later at Magh Ailbe, when St. Fintan again upheld his views in opposition to St. Laserian (Mo Laisre). But the views of the University Church prevailed. His feast is observed on 21 October. The beautiful stone cross of "St. Munn" still stands in the churchyard of the village.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Fioretti di San Francesco d'Assisi

Little Flowers of Francis of Assisi, the name given to a classic collection of popular legends about the life of St. Francis of Assisi and his early companions as they appeared to the Italian people at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Such a work, as Ozanam observes, can hardly be said to have one author; it is the product rather of gradual growth and must, as Sabatier remarks, remain in a certain sense anonymous, because it is national. There has been some doubt as to whether the "Fioretti" were written in Italian in the first instance, as Sbaralea thought, or were translated from a Latin original, as Wadding maintained. The latter seems altogether more probable, and modern critics generally believe that a larger Latin collection of legends, which has come down to us under the name of the "Actus B. Francisci et Sociorum Ejus', represents an approximation to the text now lost of the original "Floretum", of which the "Fioretti" is a translation. A striking difference is noticeable between the earlier chapters of the "Fioretti", which refer to St. Francis and his companions, and the later ones which deal with the friars in the province of the March of Ancina. The first half of the collection is, no doubt, merely a new form given to traditions that go back to the early days of the order; the other is believed to be subtantially the work of a certain Fra Ugolino da Monte Giorgio of the noble family of Brunfote (see Brunforte, Ugolino), who, at the time of his death in 1348, was provincial of the Friors Minor in the March. Living as he did a century after the death of St. Francis, Ugolino was dependent on hearsay for much of his information; part of it he is said to have learned from Fra Giacomo da Massa who had been well known and esteemed by the companions of the saint, and who had lived on terms of intimacy with Fra Leone, his confessor and secretary. Whatever may have been the sources from which Ugolino derived his materials, the fifty-three chapters which constitute the Latin work in question seem to have been written before 1328. The four appendixes on the Stigmata of St. Francis, the life of Fra Ginepro, and the life and the sayings of the Fra Egidio, which occupy nearly one half of the printed text of the "Fioretti", as we now have it, form no part of the original collection and were probably added by later compilers. Unfortunately the name of the fourteenth-century Franciscan friar who translated into Italian fifty-three of the seventy-six chapters found in the "Actus B. Francisci" and in translating immortalized them as the "Fioretti", remains unknown. The attribution of this work to Giovanni di San Lorenzo rests wholly upon conjecture. It has been surmised that the translator was a Florentine. However this may be, the vernacular version is written in the most limpid Tuscan and is reckoned among the masterpieces of Italian literature.

The "Fioretti" have been described as "the most exquite expression of the religious life of the Middle Ages". That perhaps which gives these legends such a peculiar charm, is what may be called their atmosphere; they breathe all the delicious fragrance of the early Francisan spirit. Nowhere can there be found a more childlike faith, a livelier sense of the supernatural, or a simpler literalness in the following Christ than in the pages of the "Fioretti", which more than any other work transport us to the scenes amid which St. Francis and his first followers live, and enable us to see them as they saw themselves.

These legends, moreover, bear precious witness to the vitality and enthusiasm with which the memory of the life and teaching of the Poverello was preserved, and they contain much more history, as distinct from mere poetry, than it was customary to recognize when Suyskens and Papini wrote. In Italy the "Fioretti" have always enjoyed an extraordinary popularity; indeed, this liber aureus is said to have been more widely read there than any book, not excepting even the Bible or the Divine Comedy. Certain it is that the "Fioretti" have exercised an immense influence forming in the popular conception of St. Francis and his companions. The earliest known MS of the "Fioretti", now preserved at Berlin, is dated 1390; the work was first printed at Vicenza in 1476. Manzoni has collected many interesting details about the wellnigh innumerable codices and editions of the "Fioretti". The best edition for the general reader is unquestionably that of Father Antonio Cesari (Verona, 1822) which is based on the epoch-making edition of Filippo Buonarroti (Florence, 1718). The Crusca quote from this edition which has been often reprinted. The "Fioretti" have been translated into nearly every European language and in our day are being much read and studied in Northern countries. There are several well-known English versions.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Liturgical Use of Fire

Fire is one of the most expressive and most ancient of liturgical symbols. All the creeds of antiquity accorded a prominent place to this element whose mysterious nature and irresistible power frequently caused it to be adored as a god. The sun, as the principle of heat and light for the earth, was regarded as an igneous mass and had its share in this worship. Christianity adapted this usual belief, but denied the divine title to heat and light, and made them the symbols of the divinity, which enlightens and warms humanity. The symbolism led quite naturally to the liturgical rite by which the Church on the Eve of Easter celebrates the mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, of which the extinguished and rekindled fire furnishes the expressive image. The beginning of the office also reflects ancient beliefs. The new fire is struck from a flint and is blessed with this prayer:

Lord God, Almighty Father, inextinguishable light, Who hast created all light, bless this light sanctified and blessed by Thee, Who hast enlightened the whole world; make us enlightened by that light and inflamed with the fire of Thy brightness; and as Thou didst enlighten Moses when he went out of Egypt, so illuminate our hearts and senses that we may attain life and light everlasting through Christ our Lord. Amen.

When the fire has been struck from the flint the three-branched candle is lighted and the deacon chants the "Exultet", a liturgical poem whose style is as lively and charming as the melody which accompanies it. It is yet preserved in the Roman Liturgy. In the East the ceremony of the new fire occupies a place of considerable importance in the paschal ritual of the Greek Church at Jerusalem. This ceremony is the occasion for scandalous demonstrations of a piety which frequently degenerates into orgies worthy of pagan rites. The Journal of the Marquis de Nointel, in the seventeenth century, relates scenes which cannot be transcribed and which take place periodically. This ceremony is peculiar to the Holy City and does not figure in the ordinary Byzantine ritual.

In the West we see the Irish, as early as the sixth century, lighting large fires at nightfall on the Eve of Easter. The correspondence of St. Boniface with Pope Zachary furnishes a curious detail on this subject. These fires were kindled, not with brands from other fires, but with lenses; they were therefore new fires. There is no trace of this custom in Gaul, where the Merovingian liturgical books are silent on the point. It is difficult to say what took place in Spain, for although the Mozarabic Missal contains a blessing of fire at the beginning of the vigil of Easter, it can hardly be admitted that this ceremony was primitive. It may have been inserted in this missal at a later date as it was in the Roman Missal, in the case of which fire is obtained from a flint and steel. It is possible that the custom, of Breton or Celtic origin, was imposed upon the Anglo-Saxons, and the missionaries of that nation brought it to the continent in the eighth century. An altogether different rite, though of similar meaning, was followed at Rome. On Holy Thursday, at the consecration of the holy chrism, there was collected in all the lamps of the Lateran basilica a quantity of oil sufficient to fill three large vases deposited in the corner of the church. Wicks burned in this oil until the night of Holy Saturday, when there were lighted from these lamps the candles and other luminaries by which, during the Eve of Easter, light was thrown on the ceremonies of the administration of baptism. The rite must have been attended with a certain solemnity since the letter of Pope Zachary to St. Boniface prescribes that a priest, perhaps even a bishop, should officiate on this occasion. Unhappily we are reduced to this somewhat vague information, for neither the Roman "Ordines", nor the Sacramentaries tell us anything concerning this ceremony. This blessing of the paschal candle and the fire at the beginning of Easter Eve is foreign to Rome. The large lamps prepared on Holy Thursday provided fire on the Friday and Saturday without necessitating the solemn production of a new fire. The feast of the Purification or Candlemas (2 February) has a celebrated rite with ancient prayers concerning the emission of liturgical fire and light. One of them invokes Christ as "the true light which enlightenest every man that cometh into this world". The canticle of Simeon, "Nunc Demittis", is chanted with the anthem "A light (which my eyes have seen) for the revelation of the Gentiles and for the glory of thy people Israel."

SCHANZ. Apologia (tr.) II, 96, 101; DE LA SAUSSAYE, Comparative Religion, II, 185; DUCHESNE, Origins of Christian Worship (London, 1904); KELLNER, Heortology (London, 1908); HAMPSON, Medii =AEvi Kalendarium, HONE'S Every Day Book.

H. LECLERCQ

Firmament

(Sept. stereoma; Vulgate, firmamentum).

The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us. Thus the Egyptians conceived the heavens to be an arched iron ceiling from which the stars were suspended by means of cables (Chabas, LÆAntiquiteÆ historique, Paris, 1873, pp. 64-67). Likewise to the mind of the Babylonians the sky was an immense dome, forged out of the hardest metal by the hand of Merodach (Marduk) and resting on a wall surrounding the earth (Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, Strasburg, 1890, pp. 253, 260). According to the notion prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, the sky was a great vault of crystal to which the fixed stars were attached, though by some it was held to be of iron or brass. That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Gen., i) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters. The Hebrew word means something beaten or hammered out, and thus extended; the Vulgate rendering, ôfirmamentumö corresponds more closely with the Greek stereoma (Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus), ôsomething made firm or solidö. The notion of the solidity of the firmament is moreover expressed in such passages as Job, xxxvii, 18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, ôwhich are most strong, as if they were of molten brassö. The same is implied in the purpose attributed to God in creating the firmament, viz. to serve as a wall of separation between the upper and lower of water, it being conceived as supporting a vast celestial reservoir; and also in the account of the deluge (Gen., vii), where we read that the ôflood gates of heaven were openedö, and shut upö (viii, 2). (Cf. also IV 28 sqq.) Other passages e.g. Is., xlii, 5, emphasize rather the idea of something extended: ôThus saith the Lord God that created the heavens and stretched them outö (Cf. Is., xliv, 24, and xl, 22). In conformity with these ideas, the writer of Gen., i, 14-17, 20 represents God as setting the stars in the firmament of heaven, and the fowls are located beneath it, i.e. in the air as distinct from the firmament. On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.

LeseÆtre in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v.: Whitehouse in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible. s. v. Cosmogony, I, 502.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Firmicus Maternus

Christian author of the fourth century, wrote a work "De errore profanarum religionum". Nothing is known about him except what can be gleaned from this work, which is found in only one MS. (Codex Vaticano-Palatinus, Saec. X). Some references to the Persian Wars, and the fact that the work was addressed to the two emperors, Constantius II and Constans I, have led to the conclusion that it was composed during their joint reign (337-350). The work is valuable because it gives a picture of the character which the paganism of the later Roman Empire had taken, under the stress of the new spiritual needs aroused by contact with the religions of Egypt and the East. It aims, if one may judge from the mutilated introduction, at presenting from a philosophical and historical standpoint, reasons showing the superiority of Christianity over the superstitions and licentiousness of heathenism. In a general survey of pagan creeds and beliefs the author holds up to scorn the origin and practices of the Gentile cults. All its parts are not of equal merit or importance, from the purely historical standpoint. The first portion, in which the religions of Greece and the East are described, is merely a compilation from earlier sources, but in the latter section of the work, in which the mysteries of Eleusis, Isis, and especially Mithra are set forth in detail, with their system of curious passwords, formulae, and ceremonies, the author seems to speak from personal experience, and thus reveals many interesting facts which are not found elsewhere. The emperors are exhorted to stamp out this network of superstition and immorality, as a sacred duty for which they will receive a reward from God Himself, and ultimately the praise and thanks of those whom they rescue from error and corruption. The theory that the author of the Christian work was identical with Julius Firmicus Maternus Siculus, who wrote a work on astrology (De Nativitatibus sive Matheseos), assigned by Mommsen to the year 337 ["Hermes", XXIX (1894), 468 sq.], is favourably received by some, as well because of the identity of names and dates, as because of similarities in style which they are satisfied the two documents exhibit. This theory of course supposes that the author wrote one work before, the other after, his conversion. Critical edition by Halm (Vienna, 1867) in "Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat.", II.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Firmilian

Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, died c. 269. He had among his contemporaries a reputation comparable to that of Dionysius or Cyprian. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, then a pagan, having completed his secular studies, "fell in with Firmilian, a Cappadocian of noble family, similar to himself in character and talent, as he showed in his subsequent life when he adorned the Church of Cæsarea." The two young men agreed in their desire to know more of God, and came to Origen, whose disciples they became, and by whom Gregory, at least, was baptised. Firmilian was more probably brought up as a Christian. Later, when bishop, Eusebius tells us, he had such a love for Origen that he invited him to his own country for the benefit of the Churches, at the time (232-5) when the great teacher was staying in Cæsarea of Palestine, on account of his bishop's displeasure at his having been ordained priest in that city. Firmilian also went to him subsequently and stayed with him some time that he might advance in theology (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxviii, 1). He was an opponent of the antipope Novatian, for Dionysius in 252-3 writes that Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and Theoctistus of Cæsarea in Palestine (that is, the Metropolitans of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Palestine) had invited him to a synod at Antioch, where some were trying to support the heresy of Novatian (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VI, xlvi, 3). Dionysius counts Firmilian as one of "the more eminent bishops" in a letter to Pope Stephen (ibid., VII, v, 1), where his expression "Firmilian and all Cappadocia" again implies that Cæsarea was already a metropolitan see. This explains why Firmilian could invite Origen to Cappadocia, "for the benefit of the Churches".

In a letter to Pope Sixtus II (257-8), Dionysius mentions that Pope St. Stephen in the baptismal controversy had refused to communicate with Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and all Cilicia and Cappadocia, and the neighbouring lands (Euseb., VII, v, 3-4). We learn the cause of this from the only writing of St. Firmilian's which remains to us. When the baptismal controversy arose, St. Cyprian wished to gain support from the Churches of the East against Pope Stephen for his own decision to rebaptize all heretics who returned to the Church. At the end of the summer of 256, he sent the deacon Rogatian to Firmilian with a letter, together with the documents on the subject–letters of the pope, of his own, and of his council at Carthage in the spring, and the treatise "De Eccl. Cath. Unitate". Firmilian's reply was received at Charthage about the middle of November. It is a long letter, even more bitter and violent than that of Cyprian to Pompeius. It has come down to us in a translation made, no doubt, under St. Cyprian's direction, and apparently very literal, as it abounds in Græcisms (Ep. lxxv among St. Cyprian's letters). St. Cpyrian's arguments against St. Stephen are reiterated and reinforced, and the treatise on Unity is laid under contribution. It is particularly interesting to note that the famous fourth chapter of that treatise must have been before the writer of the letter in its original form, and not in the alternative "Roman" form (c. xvi). It is the literal truth when Firmilian says: "We have received your writings as our own, and have committed them to memory by repeated reading" (c. iv)

The reasoning against the validity of heretical baptism is mainly that of St. Cyprian, that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit cannot admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess. Firmilian is fond of dilemmas: for instance, either the heretics do not give the Holy Ghost, in which case rebaptism is necessary, or else they do give it, in which case Stephen should not enjoin the laying on of hands. It is important that Firmilian enables us to gather much of the drift of St. Stephen's letter. It is "ridiculous" that Stephen demanded nothing but the use of the Trinitarian formula. He had appealed to tradition from St. Peter and St. Paul: this is an insult to the Apostles, cries Firmilian, for they execrated heretics. Besides (this is from Cyprian, Ep. lxxiv, 2), "no one could be so silly as to believe this", for the heretics are all later than the Apostles! And Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. "I am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (c. xvii). "You have cut yourself off–do not mistake–since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all" (c. xxiv).

We thus learn the claims of the pope to impose on the whole Church by his authority as successor of Peter, a custom derived by the Roman Church from Apostolic tradition. Firmilian tells the Africans that with them the custom of rebaptizing may be new, but in Cappadocia it is not, and he can answer Stephen by opposing tradition to tradition, for it was their practice from the beginning (c. xix); and some time since, he had joined in a council at Iconium with the bishops of Galatia and Cilicia and other provinces, and had decided to rebaptize the Montanists (c. vii and xix). Dionysius, in a letter to the Roman priest Philemon, also mentions the Council of Iconium with one of Synnada "among many". It was presumably held in the last years of Alexander Severus, c. 231-5. Firmilian also took part in the two councils of 264-5 at Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata. He may even have presided. The letter of the third council says he was too easily persuaded that Paul would amend; hence the necessity of another council (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VII, iii-v). He was on his way to this assembly when death overtook him at Tarsus. This was in 268 (Harnack) or 269. Though he was cut off from communion by Pope Stephen, it is certain that the following popes did not adhere to this severe policy. He is commemorated in the Greek Menæa on 28 Oct., but is unknown to the Western martyrologies. His great successor, St. Basil, mentions his view on heretical baptism without accepting it (Ep. clxxxviii), and says, when speaking of the expression "with the Holy Ghost" in the Doxology: "That our own Firmilian held this faith is testified by the books [lógoi] which he has left" (De. Spir. Sanc., xxix, 74). We hear nothing else of such writings, which were probably letters.

      Bossue, in Acta SS., 28 Oct., gives an elaborate dissertation on this saint; Benson in Dict. Christ. Biog.; the genuineness of the letter was arbitrarily contested by Missorius, In Epist. ad Pomp. inter Cypr. (Venice, 1733), and by Molkenbuhr, Binæ diss. de S. Firm. (Münster, 1790, and in P. L., III, 1357); Ritschl, Cyprian v. Karth (Göttingen, 1895), argued that the letter had been interpolated at Carthage in the interests of Cyprian's party; so also Harnack in Gesch. der altchr. Lit. (Leipzig, 1893), I, 407, and Soden, Die cyprianische Briefsammlung (Berlin, 1904); this was disproved by Ernst, Die Echtheit des Briefes Firmilians in Zeitschr. für kath. Theol. (1894), XVIII, 209, and Zur Frage über die Echheit des Briefs F.'s an Cyprian (ibid., XX, 364), also by Benson, Cyprian (London, 1897), p. 377, and Harnack later expressed himself convinced (Gesch., II, ii, p. 359, 1904). Moses of Chorene, Hist. Arm., II, lxxv, attributed to Firmilian "many books, among them a history of the persecutions of the Church in the days of Maximus, Decius and later of Diocletian". This is a mistake. It seems there were letters from Firmilian in the published correspondence of Origen, according to St. Jerome's version of the list of Origen's works by Pamphilus and Eusebius: "Origenis Firmiani [sic] et Gregorii" [ed. by Klostermann, Sitzungsberichte der Real-Akad (Berlin, 1897); see Harnack, op. cit., II, ii, p. 47]; the letter to Gregory Thaum. is extant. A fragment of a letter from Origen to Firmilian, cited by Victor of Capua, was published by Pitra, Spic. Solesm., I, 268. St. Augustine seems not to have known the letter to Cyprian, but Cresconius seems to have referred to it, C. Cresc., iii, 1 and 3. The letter is not quoted by any ancient writer, and is found in at most 28 out of the 431 MSS. of St. Cyprian enumerated by von Soden, op. cit. See also Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Lit., II, 269; Batiffol, Litt. grecque (Paris, 1898); Idem, L'Eglise naissante et le Catholicisme (Paris, 1909); see also references under Cyprian of Carthage , Saint .

John Chapman.

First-Born

The word, though casually taken in Holy Writ in a metaphorical sense, is most generally used by the sacred writers to designate the first male child in a family. The first-cast male animal is, in the English Bibles, termed "firstling". The firstlings, both human and animal, being considered as the best representatives of the race, because its blood flows purest and strongest in them, were commonly believed, among the early nomad Semitic tribes, to belong to God in a special way. Hence, very likely, the custom of sacrificing the first-cast animals; hence also the prerogatives of the first-born son; hence, possibly, even some of the superstitious practices which mar a few pages of the history of Israel.

Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father (Gen., xliii, 33) and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers (Gen., xxxvii, 21-22, 30, etc.); a special blessing was reserved to him at his father's death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family, receiving a double portion among his brothers (Deut., xxi, 17). Moreover, the first-birthright, up to the time of the promulgation of the Law, included a right to the priesthood. Of course this latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.

When God chose unto Himself the tribe of Levi to discharge the office of priesthood in Israel, He wished that His rights over the first-born should not thereby be forfeited. He enacted therefore that every first-born be redeemed, one month after his birth, for five sicles (Num., iii, 47; xviii, 15-16). This redemption tax, calculated also to remind the Israelites of the death inflicted upon the first-born of the Egyptians in punishment of Pharaoh's stubbornness (Ex., xiii, 15-16), went to the endowment-fund of the clergy. No law, however, stated that the first-born should be presented to the Temple. It seems, however, that after the Restoration parents usually took advantage of the mother's visit to the sanctuary to bring the child thither. This circumstance is recorded in St. Luke's Gospel, in reference to Christ (ii, 22-38). It might be noted here that St. Paul refers the title primogenitus to Christ (Heb., i, 6), the "first-born" of the Father. The Messianic sacrifice was the first-fruits of the Atonement offered to God for man's redemption. It must be remembered, however, contrary to what is too often asserted and seems, indeed, intimated by the liturgical texts, that the "pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons" mentioned in this connexion, were offered for the purification of the mother, and not for the child. Nothing was especially prescribed with regard to the latter.

As polygamy was, at least in early times, in vogue among the Israelites, precise regulations were enacted to define who, among the children, should enjoy the legal right of primogeniture, and who were to be redeemed. The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy.

As the first-born, so were the firstlings of the Egyptians smitten by the sword of the destroying angel, whereas those of the Hebrews were spared. As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Ex., xiii, 2; Num., iii, 3). They accordingly should be immolated. In case of clean animals, as a calf, a lamb, or a kid (Num., xviii, 15-18), they were, when one year old, brought to the sanctuary and offered in sacrifice; the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, the fat burned, and the flesh belonged to the priests. Unclean animals, however, which could not be immolated to the Lord, were redeemed with money. Exception was made in the case of the firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a sheep (Ex., xxxiv, 20) or its own price (Josephus, Ant. Jud., IV, iv, 4), or else to be slain (Ex., xiii, 13; xxxiv, 20) and buried in the ground. Firstlings sacrificed in the temple should be without blemish; such as were "lame or blind, or in any part disfigured or feeble", were to be eaten unconditionally within the gates of the owner's home-city.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

First-Fruits

The practice of consecrating first-fruits to the Deity is not a distinctly Jewish one (cf. Iliad, IX, 529; Aristophanes, "Ran.", 1272; Ovid, "Metam.", VIII, 273; X, 431; Pliny, "Hist. Nat.", IV, 26; etc.). It seems to have sprung up naturally among agricultural peoples from the belief that the first — hence the best — yield of the earth is due to God as an acknowledgment of His gifts. "God served first", then the whole crop becomes lawful food. The offering of the first-fruits was, in Israel, regulated by laws enshrined in different parts of the Mosaic books. These laws were, in the course of ages, supplemented by customs preserved later on in the Talmud. Three entire treatises of the latter, "Bíkkûrîm", "Terû-môth", and "Hállah", besides numerous other passages of both the Mishna and Gemarah, are devoted to the explanation of these customs.

First-fruit offerings are designated in the Law by a threefold name: Bíkkûrîm, Reshîth, and Terûmôth. There remains much uncertainty about the exact import of these words, as they seem to have been taken indiscriminately at different epochs. If, however, one considers the texts attentively, he may gather from them a fairly adequate idea of the subject. There was a first-fruit offering connected with the beginning of the harvest. Leviticus, xxiii, 10-14, enacted that a sheaf of ears should be brought to the priest, who, the next day after the Sabbath, was to lift it up before the Lord. A holocaust, a meal-offering, and a libation accompanied the ceremony; and until it was performed no "bread, or parched corn, or frumenty of the harvest" should be eaten. Seven weeks later two loaves, made from the new harvest, were to be brought to the sanctuary for a new offering. The Bíkkûrîm consisted, it seems, of the first ripened raw fruits; they were taken from wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomogranates, olives, and honey. The fruits offered were supposed to be the choicest, and were to be fresh, except in the case of grapes and figs, which might be offered dried by Israelites living far from Jerusalem. No indication is given in Scripture as to how much should be thus brought to the sanctuary. But the custom was gradually introduced of consecrating no less than one-sixtieth and no more than one-fortieth of the crop (Bíkk., ii, 2, 3, 4). Occasionally, of course, there were extraordinary offerings, like that of the fruit of a tree the fourth year after it bad been planted (Lev., xix, 23-25); one might also, for instance, set apart as a free offering the harvest of a whole field.

No time was, at first, specially set apart for the offering; in later ages, however, the feast of Dedication (25 Casleu) was assigned as the limit (Bíkk., i, 6; Hállah, iv, 10). In the Book of Deuteronomy, xxvi, 1-11, directions are laid down as to the manner in which these offerings should be made. The first-fruits were brought in a basket to the sanctuary and presented to the priest, with an expression of thanksgiving for the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the possession of the fertile land of Palestine. A feast, shared by the Levite and the stranger, followed. Whether the fruits offered were consumed in that meal is not certain; Numbers, xviii, 13, seems to intimate that they henceforth belonged to the priest, and Philo and Josephus suppose the same.

Other offerings were made of the prepared fruits, especially oil, wine, and dough (Deut., xviii, 4; Num., xv, 20-21; Lev., ii, 12, 14-15; cf. Ex., xxii, 29, in the Greek), and "the first of the fleece". As in the case of the raw fruits, no quantity was determined; Ezechiel affirms that it was one-sixtieth of the harvest for wheat and barley and one-one hundredth for oil. They were presented to the sanctuary with ceremonies analogous to those alluded to above, although, unlike the Bíkkûrîm, they were not offered at the altar, but brought into the store-rooms of the temple. They may he looked upon, therefore, not so much as sacrificial matter as a tax for the support of the priests. (See ANNATES.)

SMITH, The Religion of the Semites (2d ed., London, 1907): WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, tr. BLACK AND MENZIEB (Edinburgh, 1885), 157-58; PHILO, De festo cophini; ID., De proemiis sacerdotum; JOSEPHUS, Ant. Jud., IV, viii, 22; RELAND, Antiquitates sacrœ; SCHÜRER, Geschichte des jüd. Volkes im Zeit. J. C. (Leipzig, 1898), II, 237-50.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY.

Fiscal Procurator

(Lat. PROCURATOR FISCALIS).

The duties of the fiscal procurator consist in preventing crime and safeguarding ecclesiastical law. In case of notification or denunciation it is his duty to institute proceedings and to represent the law. His office is comparable to that of the state attorney in criminal cases. The institution of the procuratores regii or procureurs du roi (king's procurators) was established in France during the thirteenth century, and has developed from that time onward; though canon law, previous to that time, had imposed on the bishops the duty of investigating the commission of crimes and instituting the proper judicial proceedings. It is to be noted that formerly canon law admitted the validity of private as well as of public accusation or denunciation. At present custom has brought it about that all criminal proceedings in ecclesiastical courts are initiated exclusively by the fiscal procurator.

The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 11 June, 1880, called attention to the absolute necessity of the fiscal procurator in every episcopal curia, as a safeguard for law and justice. The fiscal procurator may be named by the bishop, either permanently, or his term of office may he limited to individual cases (see Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884, no. 299; App., p. 289). This official appears not only in criminal proceedings but also in other ecclesiastical matters. In matrimonial cases, canon law provides for a defender of the matrimonial tie whose duty it is to uphold the validity of the marriage, as long as its invalidity has not been proven in two lower ecclesiastical courts. This defender of the matrimonial tie represents both ecclesiastical law and public morality, whose ultimate objects would not be attained if the validity or invalidity of a marriage were decided in a too easy or informal way. A similar office is that of the defender of the validity of sacred orders and solemn vows. When the validity of either of these acts, and their pertinent obligations, is attacked, it becomes the duty of this official to bring forward whatever arguments may go to establish their binding force. In all these cases the defensor, like the fiscal procurator in criminal processes, represents the public interests; the institution of this office was all the more necessary, as it takes cognizance of causes in which both parties frequently display a desire to have the contract nullified. In the processes of beatification and canonization it devolves on the promotor fidei to investigate strictly the reasons urged in favour of canonization, and to find out and emphasize all objections which can possibly be urged against it. He is therefore popularly known as the advocatus diaboli, i. e. "devil's lawyer". It is the duty of the promotor fidei, therefore, to take up the negative side in the discussion which has a place amongst the preliminaries to beatification and canonization, and to endeavour, by every legitimate means, to prevent the completion of the process.

PÉRIES, Le Procureur Fiscal ou promoteur (Paris, 1897); LEGA, De Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, Bk. I, vol. I, 2nd ed. (Rome, 1905).

FISCAL OF THE HOLY OFFICE

The Holy Office, i.e. the supreme court in the Catholic Church for all matters that affect its faith or are closely connected with its teaching, has an officialis fiscalis, whose duties are similar to those of the fiscal procurator in episcopal courts. The officialis fiscalis is present at all sessions of the Holy Office, when criminal cases are sub judice, and as adviser to the ordinary when the process is referred to the episcopal court. By the reorganization of the Roman Curia, 29 June, 1908, the Holy Office continues to retain its exclusive competency in all cases of heresy and kindred crimes. The office of fiscalis to this Congregation therefore remains unchanged.

JOSEPH LAURENTIUS.

Symbolism of the Fish

Among the symbols employed by the primitive Christians, that of the fish ranks probably first in importance. While the use of the fish in pagan art as a purely decorative sign is ancient and constant, the earliest literary reference to the symbolic fish is made by Clement of Alexandria, born about 150, who recommends his readers (Paedagogus, III, xi) to have their seals engraved with a dove or a fish. Clement did not consider it necessary to give any reason for this recommendation, from which it may be safely be inferred that the meaning of both symbols was unnecessary. Indeed, from monumental sources we know that the symbolic fish was familiar to Christians long before the famous Alexandrian was born; in such Roman monuments as the Capella Greca and the Sacrament Chapels of the catacomb of St. Callistus, the fish was depicted as a symbol in the first decades of the second century.

The symbol itself may have been suggested by the miraculous multification of the loaves and fishes or the repast of the seven Disciples, after the Resurrection, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21:9), but its popularity among Christians was due principally, it would seem, to the famous acrostic consisting of the initial letters of five Greek words forming the word for fish (Ichthys), which words briefly but clearly described the character of Christ and His claim to the worship of believers: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour. (See the discourse of Emperor Constantine, "Ad coetum Sanctorum" c. xviii.) It is not improbable that this Christian formula originated in Alexandria, and was intended as a protest against the pagan apotheosis of the emperors; on a coin from Alexandria of the reign of Domitian (81-96) this emperor is styled Theou Yios (Son of God).

The word Ichthys, then, as well as the representation of a fish, held for Christians a meaning of the highest significance; it was a brief profession of faith in the divinity of Christ, the Redeemer of mankind. Believers in this mystic Ichthys were themselves : "little fishes", according to the well-known passage of Tertullian (De baptismo, c. 1): "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water".

The association of the Ichthys with the Eucharist is strongly emphasized in the epitaph of Abercius, the second century Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia (see Inscription of Abercius), and in the somewhat later epitaph of Pectorius of Autun. Abercius tells us on the aforesaid monument that in his journey from his Asiatic home to Rome, everywhere on the way he received as food "the Fish from the spring, the great, the pure", as well as "wine mixed with water, together with bread". Pectorius also speaks of the Fish as a delicious spiritual nurture supplied by the "Saviour of the Saints". In the Eucharistic monuments this idea is expressed repeatedly in the pictorial form; the food before the banqueters is invariably bread and fish on two separate dishes. The peculiar significance attached to the fish in this relation is well brought out in such early frescoes as the Fractio Panis scene in the cemetery of St. Priscilla, and the fishes on the grass, in closest proximity to the baskets containing bread and wine, in the crypt of Lucina. (See Symbolism of the Eucharist.)

The fish symbol was not, however, represented exclusively with symbols of the Eucharist; quite frequently it is found associated with such other symbols as the dove, the anchor, and the monogram of Christ. The monuments, too, on which it appears, from the first to the fourth century, include frescoes, sculptured representations, rings, seals, gilded glasses, as well as enkolpia of various materials. The type of fish depicted calls for no special observation, save that, from the second century, the form of the dolphin was frequently employed. The reason for this particular selection is presumed to be the fact that, in popular esteem, the dolphin was regarded as friendly to man.

Besides the Eucharistic frescoes of the catacombs a considerable number of objects containing the fish-symbol are preserved in various European museums, one of the most interesting, because of the grouping of the fish with several other symbols, being a carved gem in the Kircherian Museum in Rome. On the left is a T-form anchor, with two fishes beneath the crossbar, while next in order are a T-form cross with a dove on the crossbar and a sheep at the foot, another T-cross as the mast of a ship, and the good shepherd carrying on His shoulders the strayed sheep. In addition to these symbols the five letters of the word Ichthys are distributed round the border. Another ancient carved gem represents a ship supported by a fish, with doves perched on the mast and stern, and Christ on the waters rescuing St. Peter.

After the fourth century the symbolism of the fish gradually disappeared; representations of fishes on baptismal fonts and on bronze baptismal cups like those found at Rome and Trier, now in the Kircherian Museum, are merely of an ornamental character, suggested, probably by the water used in baptism.

MAURICE M. HASSETT

Philip Fisher

(An alias, real name THOMAS COPLEY)

Missionary, b. in Madrid, 1595-6; d. in Maryland, U. S., 1652. He was the eldest son of William Copley of Gatton, England, of a Catholic family of distinction who suffered exile in the reign of Elizabeth. He arrived in Maryland in 1637, and, being a man of great executive ability, took over the care of the mission, "a charge which at that time required rather business men than missionaries". In 1645, Father Fisher was wantonly seized and carried in chains to England, with Father Andrew White, the founder of the English mission in America. After enduring many hardships he was released, when he boldly returned to Maryland (Feb., 1648), where, after an absence of three years, he found his flock in a more flourishing state than those who had opposed and plundered them. That he made an effort to enter the missionary field of Virginia, appears from a letter written 1 March, 1648, to the Jesuit General Caraffa in Rome, in which he says: "A road has lately been opened through the forest to Virginia; this will make it but a two days' journey, and both places can now be united in one mission. After Easter I shall wait upon the Governor of Virginia upon business of great importance." Unfortunately there is no further record bearing on the projected visit. Neill, in his "Terra Mariae" (p. 70), and Smith in his "Religion under the Barons of Baltimore" (p. VII), strangely confound this Father Thomas Copley of Maryland with an apostate John Copley, who was never a Jesuit. Father Fisher is mentioned with honourable distinction in the missionary annals of Maryland, and, according to Hughes, was "the most distinguished man among the fourteen Jesuits who had worked in Maryland".

HUGHES, "History of the Society of Jesus in North America" (London and New York, 1907), Text, I passim; Documents I, part I; SHEA, "The Catholic Church in Colonial Days" (New York, 1886), 38, 46-47, 53; FOLEY, "Records of English Province S.J. (London, 1882), VII, 255; DORSEY, "Life of Father Thomas Copley", published in "Woodstock Letters", XIV, 223; "Woodstock Letters", XI, 18-24; XII, 104-105; XV, 44, 47; OLIVER, "Collections . . . Scotch, English and Irish Members of S.J." (London, 1845), 91, 92; RUSSELL, "Maryland, the Land of the Sanctuary" (Baltimore, 1907), 88, 125, 127, 156-159, 171-173; "Dict. of National Biography" (New York, 1908), IV, 1114.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Daniel Fitter

Born in Worcestershire, England, 1628; died at St. Thomas' Priory, near Stafford, 6 Feb., 1700. He entered Lisbon College at the age of nineteen, went through his studies with some distinction, and was raised to the priesthood in 1651. A year or two later, he returned to England, and was appointed chaplain to William Fowler, Esq., of St. Thomas' Priory, near Stafford, where he remained until his death. During the reign of James II, he opened a school at Stafford, which was suppressed at the revolution in 1688. At the period of excitement ensuing upon the Titus Oates plot (1678), he, with a few others, upheld the lawfulness of taking the oath then tendered to every well-known Catholic. He himself subscribed it, and defended his action on the ground of a common and legal use of the term "spiritual". In consequence of this, when the chapter chose him as Vicar-General of the Counties of Stafford, Derby, Cheshire and Salop, they required that he should "sign a Declaration made by our Brethren in Paris against the Oath of Supremacy".

In a letter to the clergy of England and Scotland (1684), Cardinal Philip Howard recommended warmly the "Institutum clericorum in communi viventium", founded in 1641 by the German priest Bartolomaus Holzhauser, and approved by Innocent XI in 1680 and 1684. The institute met with eager acceptance in England, and Fitter was appointed its first provincial president and procurator for the Midland district. The association was, however, dissolved shortly after his death by Bishop Giffard in 1702, on account of a misunderstanding between its members and the rest of the secular clergy. Fitter had bequeathed property to "The Common Purse" of the institute, with a life-interest in favour of his elder brother Francis; but when the institute ceased to exist, Francis, by a deed of assignment, established a new trust (1703), called "The Common Fund" for the benefit of the clergy of the district. This fund became subsequently known as "The Johnson Fund" and still exists. Daniel Fitter also left a fund for the maintenance of a priest, whose duty it should be to reside in the county of Stafford and take spiritual charge of the poor Catholics of the locality.

HENRY PARKINSON

James Fitton

Missionary, b. at Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 10 April, 1805; d. there, 15 Sept., 1881. His father, Abraham Fitton, went to Boston from Preston, England; his mother was of Welsh origin and a convert to the Faith. His primary education was received in the schools of his native city, and his classical course was made at Claremont, New Hampshire, at an academy conducted by Virgil Horace Barber, an early New England convert to the Faith. His theology he learned from the lips of Bishop Fenwick, by whom he was ordained priest, 23 Dec., 1827. Thenceforth for nearly a quarter of a century the whole of New England became the theatre of his zealous missionary labours. Carrying a valise containing vestments, chalice, and all necessaries for offering the Holy Sacrifice, his breviary under his arm, he travelled, often on foot, from Eastport and the New Brunswick line on the northeast, to Burlington and Lake Champlain on the northwest; from Boston in the east, to Great Barrington and the Berkshire Hills in the west; from Providence and Newport in the southeast, to Bridgeport and the New York State line in the southwest. In the course of his ministry he was often exposed to insult and hardship, but he considered these as trifles when souls were to be saved. During his missionary career he was pastor of the first Catholic church at Hartford, Connecticut, and at Worcester, Massachusetts. He erected the church of Our Lady of the Isle at Newport, Rhode Island. In 1840, while pastor of the church at Worcester, he purchased the present site of Holy Cross College, and erected a building for the advanced education of Catholic young men. In 1842 he deeded the grounds and building to Bishop Fenwick, who placed it under the care of the Jesuits. In 1855 he was appointed by Bishop Fenwick pastor of the church of the Most Holy Redeemer in East Boston. Here he laboured for the remaining twenty-six years of his life, and built four more churches. In 1877 he celebrated the golden jubilee of his priesthood.

ARTHUR T. CONNOLLY

Henry Fitzalan

Twelfth Earl of Arundel, b. about 1511; d. in London, 24 Feb., 1580 (O.S. 1579). Son of William, eleventh earl, and Lady Anne Percy, he was godson to Henry VIII, in whose palace he was educated. From 1540 he was governor of Calais till 1543, when he succeeded to the earldom. In 1544 he beseiged and took Boulogne, being made lord-chamberlain as a reward. In the reign of Edward VI he opposed Protector Somerset and supported Warwick, who eventually unjustly accused him of peculation and removed him from the council. On the death of Edward he abandoned the cause of Lady Jane Grey and proclaimed Mary as queen. Throughout her reign he was in favour as lord-steward and was employed in much diplomatic business. Even under Elizabeth he at first retained his offices and power though distrusted by her ministers. Yet he was too powerful to attack, and, being a widower, was considered as a possible consort for the queen. But in 1564 he fell into disgrace, and Elizabeth did not again employ him till 1568. Being the leader of the Catholic party, he desired a marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and his son-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk, but was too cautious to commit himself, so that even after the futile northern rebellion of 1569 he was recalled to the council. But the discovery of the Ridolfi conspiracy, in 1571, again led to his confinement, and he spent the rest of his life in retirement.

EDWIN BURTON

Maria Anne Fitzherbert

Wife of King George IV; b. 26 July, 1756 (place uncertain); d. at Brighton, England, 29 March, 1837; eldest child of Walter Smythe, of Bainbridge, Hampshire, younger son of Sir John Smythe, of Eshe Hall, Durham and Acton Burnell Park, Salop, a Catholic baronet. In 1775 she married Edward Weld, of Lulworth, Dorset (uncle of Cardinal Weld), who died before the year was out. Her next husband was Thomas Fitzherbert, of Swynnerton, Staffordshire, whom she married in 1778 and who died in 1781. A young and beautiful widow with a jointure of £2000 a year, she took up her abode in 1782 at Richmond, Surrey, having at the same time a house in town. In or about 1784 happened her first meeting with George, Prince of Wales, then about twenty-two years of age, she about six years older. He straightway fell in love with her. Marriage with her princely suitor being legally impossible, Mrs. Fitzherbert turned a deaf ear to the prince's solicitations, to get rid of which she withdrew to the Continent. However, on receipt of an honourable offer from the prince, she returned after a while to England, and they were privily married in her own London drawing-room and before two witnesses, 15 Dec., 1785, the officiating minister being an Anglican curate.

Thenceforth, though in separate houses, they lived together as man and wife, she being treated on almost every hand with unbounded respect and deference, until 1787, when, upon the prince's application to Parliament for payment of his debts, Fox authoritatively declared in the House of Commons that no marriage between the prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert had ever taken place. However, upon the prince's solemn and oft-repeated assurance that Fox had no authority for this degrading denial, the breach between the offended wife and her husband was healed. So they continued to live together on a matrimonial footing until 1794, when, being about to contract a forced legal marriage with his cousin, Caroline of Brunswick, the prince very reluctantly cast Mrs. Fitzherbert off, at the same time continuing the pension of £3000 a year, which he had allowed her ever since their marriage. Shortly after the birth of Princess Charlotte in 1796, the prince, who hated the Princess of Wales, separated from her and besought the forsaken Mrs. Fitzherbert to return to him. This, after consultation with Rome, she at length did in 1800, and remained with him some nine years more, when they virtually parted. At last, in 1811, because of a crowning affront put upon her on occasion of a magnificent fête given at Carlton House by the prince, lately made regent, at which entertainment no fixed place at the royal table had been assigned her, she broke off connexion with the prince for ever; withdrawing into private life upon an annuity of £6000. Her husband, as King George IV, died in 1830, with a locket containing her miniature round his neck, and was so buried. Mrs. Fitzherbert survived him seven years, dying at the age of eighty, at Brighton, where she was buried in the Catholic church of St. John the Baptist, to the erection of which she had largely contributed, and wherein a mural monument to her memory is still to be seen.

Kebbel in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Annual Register for 1837 (London); Langdale, Memoirs of Mrs. Fitzherbert (London, 1856); Wilkins, Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV (London, 1905).

C.T. Boothman

Sir Anthony Fitzherbert

Judge, b. in 1470; d. 27 May, 1538. He was the sixth son of Ralph Fitzherbert of Norbury, Derbyshire, and Elizabeth Marshall. His brothers dying young, he succeeded his father as lord of the manor of Norbury, an estate granted to the family in 1125 and still in their hands. Wood states that he was educated at Oxford, but no evidence of this exists; nor is it known at which of the inns of court he received his legal training, though he is included in a list of Gray's Inn readers (Douthwaite, Gray's Inn, p. 46.) He was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, 18 Nov., 1510, and six years later he was appointed king's serjeant. He had already published (in 1514) his great digest of the yearbooks which was the first systematic attempt to provide a summary of English law. It was known as "La Graunde Abridgement" and has often been reprinted, both entire and in epitomes, besides forming the foundation of all subsequent abridgments. He also brought out an edition of "Magna charta cum diversis aliis statutis" (1519). In 1522 he was made a judge of common pleas and was knighted; but his new honours did not check his literary activity and in the following year (1523) he published three works: one on law, "Diversité de courtz et leur jurisdictions" (tr. by Hughes in 1646); one on agriculture, "The Boke of Husbandire"; and one of law and agriculture combined, "The Boke of Surveyinge and Improvements". All three were frequently reprinted and though Sir Anthony's authorship of the "Boke of Husbandrie" was formerly questioned it is now regarded as established. Meanwhile his integrity and ability caused much business to be entrusted to him.

In 1524 Fitzherbert was sent on a royal commission to Ireland; Archbishop Warham appointed him by will sole arbitrator in the administration of his estate; and in 1529 when Wolsey fell, he was made a commissioner to hear chancery causes in place of the chancellor, and he subsequently signed the articles of impeachment against him. As one of the judges he unwillingly took part in the trials of the martyrs Fisher, More, and Haile, but he strongly disapproved of the king's ecclesiastical policy, particularly the suppression of the monasteries and he bound his children under oath never to accept or purchase any abbey lands. In 1534 he brought out "that exact work, exquisitely penned" (Coke, Reports X, Pref.), "La Novelle Natura Brevium", which remained one of the classical English law books until the end of the eighteenth century. His last works were the constantly reprinted "L'Office et Auctoryté des justices de peas" (1538), the first complete treatise on the subject, and "L'Office de Viconts Bailiffes, Escheators, Constables, Coroners". Sir Anthony was twice married, first to Dorothy Willoughby who died without issue, and secondly to Matilda Cotton by whom he had a large family. His descendants have always kept the Faith and still own his estate of Norbury as well as the family seat at Swynnerton.

EDWIN BURTON

Thomas Fitzherbert

Born 1552, at Swynnerton, Staffs, England; died 17 Aug., 1640, at Rome. His father having died whilst Thomas was an infant, he was, even as a child, the head of an important family and the first heir born at Swynnerton, where his descendants have since flourished and still remain Catholics. He was trained to piety and firmness in his religion by his mother, and when sent to Oxford in his sixteenth year he confessed his faith with a courage that grew with the various trials, of which he has left us an interesting memoir (Foley, "Records of English Province S.J.", II, 210). At last he was forced to keep in hiding, and in 1572 he suffered imprisonment. In 1580 he married and had issue, but he did not give up his works of zeal. When Campion and Persons commenced their memorable mission, Fitzherbert put himself at their service, and helped Campion in the preparation of his "Decem Rationes" by verifying quotations and copying passages from the fathers in various libraries, to which it would have been impossible for the Jesuit to obtain admission. Unable at last to maintain his position in face of the ever-growing persecution, he left England in 1582, and took up his residence in the north of France. Here, as a lay Catholic of birth, means, and unexceptionable character, he was much trusted by the Catholic leaders, and as sedulously watched by Walsingham's emissaries, whose letters contain frequent insinuations against his intentions and ulterior objects (see Foley, "Records of English Province S.J.", II, 220-228). His wife died in 1588, and he soon afterwards took a vow of celibacy. He is next found in the household of the young Duke of Feria, whose mother was Lady Anne Dormer. With him or in his service he lived in Flanders, Spain, Milan, Naples, and Rome for some twenty years, until the duke died in 1607, on the point of setting out for a diplomatic mission to Germany, on which Fitzherbert was to have accompanied him. It was during this period that he was charged in 1598 by Squire with having tempted him to murder Queen Elizabeth; in 1595 a charge of contradictory implication had been preferred against him to the Spanish Government, viz. that he was an agent of Elizabeth. Both charges led to the enhancement of his reputation. An interesting series of 200 letters from the duke to him is preserved in the archives of the Archdiocese of Westminster. In 1601, while in Spain, he felt moved to take a vow to offer himself for the priesthood, and he was ordained in Rome 24 March, 1602. After this he acted as Roman agent for the archpriest Harrison until he was succeeded, in 1609, by the future bishop, Richard Smith. But in 1606 he had made a third vow, namely, to enter the Society of Jesus, which he did about the year 1613. He was soon given the important post of superior in Flanders, 1616 to 1618, afterwards recalled and made rector of the English College, Rome, from 1618 to 1639. He died there, closing, at the age of eighty-eight years, a life that had been filled with an unusual variety of important duties. His principal works are: "A Defence of the Catholycke Cause, By T.F., with an Apology of his innocence in a fayned conspiracy of Edward Squire" (St-Omer, 1602); "A Treatise concerning Policy and Religion" (Douai, 1606-10, 1615), translated into Latin in 1630. This work was highly valued for its sound and broad-minded criticism of the lax political principles professed in those days. He also wrote books in the controversy that grew out of King James's Oath of Allegiance: "A Supplement to [Father Persons's] the Discussion of M. D. Barlow" (St-Omer, 1613); "A Confutation of certaine Absurdities uttered by M. D. Andrews" (St-Omer, 1613); "Of the Oath of Fidelity" (St-Omer, 1614); "The Obmutesce of F. F. to the Epphata of D. Collins" (St-Omer, 1621). We have also from his pen a translation of Turcellini's "Life of St. Francis Xavier" (Paris, 1632).

J.H. POLLEN

William John Fitzpatrick

Historian, b. in Dublin, Ireland, 31 Aug., 1830; d. there 24 Dec., 1895. The son of a rich merchant, he had ample means to indulge his peculiar tastes, and these were for biography, and especially for seeking out what was hitherto unknown and not always desirable to publish about great men. Educated partly at a Protestant school, partly at Clongowes Wood College, he early took to writing and in 1855 published his first work — "The Life, Times and Correspondence of Lord Cloncurry". The same year he wrote a series of letters to "Notes and Queries" charging Sir Walter Scott with plagiarism in his Waverley novels, and attributing the chief credit of having written these novels to Sir Walter's brother Thomas. The latter was dead, but his daughters repudiated Fitzpatrick's advocacy and their father's supposed claims, and the matter ended there. In 1859 Fitzpatrick published "The Friends, Foes and Adventures of Lady Morgan". From that date to his death, his pen was never idle. His research was great, his industry a marvel, his patience and care immense, nor is he ever consciously unjust. For these reasons, though his style is unattractive, his works are valuable, especially to the Irish historical student. Notable examples are "The Sham Squire" (1866), "Ireland before the Union" (1867), "The Correspondence of Daniel O'Connell" (1888), "Secret Service under Pitt" (1892). Fitzpatrick also wrote works dealing with Archbishop Whately, Charles Lever, Rev. Dr. Lanigan, Father Tom Burke, O.P., and Father James Healy of Bray. In 1876 he was appointed professor of history by the Hibernian Academy of Arts. Fitzpatrick's painstaking research as well as his spirit of fair play are specially to be commended and have earned words of praise from two men differing in many other things — Lecky and Gladstone.

E.A. D'ALTON

Richard Fitzralph

Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Dundalk, Ireland, about 1295; d. at Avignon, 16 Dec., 1360. He studied in Oxford, where we first find mention of him in 1325 as an ex-fellow and teacher of Balliol College. He was made doctor of theology before 1331, and was chancellor of Oxford University in 1333. In 1334 he was made chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral, and in Jan., 1335, canon and prebendary of Lichfield, "notwithstanding that he has canonries and prebends of Crediton and Bosham, and has had provision made for him of the Chancellorship of Lincoln and the canonries and prebends of Armagh and Exeter, all of which he is to resign" (Bliss, Calendar of Entries in Papal Registers, II, 524). He was archdeacon of Chester when made dean of Lichfield in 1337. On 31 July, 1346, he was consecrated Archbishop of Armagh.

Fitzralph was a man who pre-eminently joined the speculative temperament with the practical. One of the great Scholastic luminaries of his day, and a close friend of the scholarly Richard of Bury, he fostered learning among his priests by sending many of them to take higher studies in Oxford. He was zealous too in visiting the various church provinces, and in bettering financial as well as spiritual conditions in his own see. He contended for his primatial rights against the immunity claimed by the See of Dublin; and on various occasions acted as peacemaker between the English and the Irish. He was in great demand as a preacher, and many of his sermons are still extant in manuscript. Whilst at Avignon in 1350, Fitzralph presented a memorial from the English clergy reciting certain complaints against the mendicant orders. After serving on a commission appointed by Clement VI to inquire into the points at issue, he embodied his own views in the treatise "De Pauperie Salvatoris", which deals with the subject of evangelical poverty, as well as the questions then agitated concerning dominion, possession, and use, and the relation of these to the state of grace in man. Part of this work is printed by Poole in his edition of Wyclif's "De Dominio Divino" (London, 1890). It was probably during this visit that Fitzralph also took part in the negotiations going on between the Armenian delegates and the pope. He composed an elaborate apologetico-polemic work, entitled "Summa in Quaestionibus Armenorum" (Paris, 1511), in which he displayed his profound knowledge of Scripture with telling effect in refuting the Greek and Armenian heresies.

Fitzralph's controversy with the friars came to a crisis when he was cited to Avignon in 1357. Avowing his entire submission to the authority of the Holy See, he defended his attitude towards the friars in the plea entitled "Defensorium Curatorum" (printed in Goldast's "Monarchia" and elsewhere). He maintained as probable that voluntary mendicancy is contrary to the teachings of Christ. His main plea, however, was for the withdrawal of the privileges of the friars in regard to confessions, preaching, burying, etc. He urged a return to the purity of their original institution, claiming that these privileges undermined the authority of the parochial clergy. The friars were not molested, but by gradual legislation harmony was restored between them and the parish clergy. Fitzralph's position, however, was not directly condemned, and he died in peace at Avignon. In 1370 his remains were transferred to St. Nicholas' church, Dundalk; miracles were reported from his tomb and for several centuries his memory was held in saintly veneration. His printed works are mentioned above. His "Opus in P. Lombardi Sententias" and several other works (list in the "Catholic University Bulletin", XI, 243) are still in manuscript.

JOHN J. GREANEY

Henry Fitzsimon

(Fitz Simon).

Jesuit, b. 1566 (or 1569), in Dublin, Ireland; d. 29 Nov., 1643 (or 1645), probably at Kilkenny. He was educated a Protestant at Oxford (Hart Hall, and perhaps Christ Church), 1583-1587. Going thence to the University of Paris, he became a zealous protagonist of Protestantism, "with the firm intention to have died for it, if need had been". But having engaged in controversy with "an owld English Jesuit, Father Thomas Darbishire, to my happiness I was overcome. " Having embraced Catholicism, he visited Rome and Flanders, where in 1592, he "elected to militate under the Jesuits' standard, because they do most impugn the impiety of heretics". In 1595 there was a call for Jesuit laborers for Ireland, which had been deprived of them for ten years. He at once offered himself for the post of danger, and he shares with Father Archer the honour of having refound that mission on a basis that proved permanent amid innumerable dangers and trials. Keeping chiefly to Dublin and Drogheda, he was wondrously successful in reconciling Protestants, and he loudly and persistently challenged the chief Anglican divines to disputation. With the same fighting spirit, he laughed at his capture in 1600. "Now", he said, "my adversaries cannot say that they do not know where to find me", and he would shout his challenges from his prison window at every passing parson. But his opponents, James Ussher, Meredith Hanmer, and John Rider, in spite of their professions, carefully avoided coming to close quarters with their redoubtable adversary.

Banished in 1604, he visited Spain, Rome, and Flanders, 1611-1620, everywhere earnest and active with voice and pen in the cause of Ireland. At the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1620, he served as chaplain to the Irish soldiers in the imperial army, and published a diary, full of life and interest, of his adventurous experiences. He probably returned to Flanders in 1621 and in 1630 went back to Ireland where he continued to work with energy and success until the outbreak of the Civil War (1640). In the ensuing tumult and confusion, we are unable to follow his later movements with certainty. At one time we hear he was under sentence of death, from which he escaped in the winter of 1641 to the Wicklow Mountains, and after many sufferings died in peace, probably in Kilkenny. "Not many, if any Irishmen", says his biographer, reflecting on the many universities, towns, courts, and armies which Father Fitzsimon had visited, "have known, or been known to, so many men of mark". Besides one controversial work in manuscript, not known to previous biographers, now at Oscott College, Birmingham, which is entitled "A revelation of contradictions in reformed articles of religion", dated 1633, he wrote two manuscript treatises, now lost, against Rider, and afterwards printed against him "A Catholic Confutation" (Rouen, 1608); Britannomachia Ministrorum" (1614); "Pugna Pragensis" (1620) and "Buquoii Quadrimestreiter, Auctore Constantio Peregrino" (Brünn, 1621, several editions, also Italian and English versions); Catalogus Præcipuorum Sanctorum Hiberniæ" (1611, several editions), important as drawing attention to Irish hagiography at a time of great depression. His "Words of Comfort to Persecuted Catholics", "Letters from a Cell in Dublin Castle", and "Diary of the Bohemian War of 1620", together with a sketch of his life, were published by Father Edmund Hogan, S.J. (Dublin, 1881).

Hogan, Distinguished Irishmen of the Sixteenth Century (Dublin, 1894), 198-310; Foley, Records S. J., VII, 260; Sommervogel, Bibliothèque, III, 766-768; Cooper in Dict. Nat Biog., s. v.

J.H. POLLEN

Thomas Fitz-Simons

American merchant, b. in Ireland, 1741; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 26 Aug., 1811. There is no positive date of his arrival in America, but church records in Philadelphia show he was there in 1758. In 1763 he was married to Catherine, sister of George Meade, and he was Meade's partner as a merchant until 1784. In the events that led up to the revolt of the colonists against England he took a prominent part. He was one of the deputies who met in conference in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia, out of which conference grew the Continental Congress that assembled 4 Sept., 1774, and of which he was a member. His election as one of the Provincial Deputies in July, 1774, is the first instance of a Catholic being named for a public office in Pennsylvania. At the breaking-out of hostilities he organized a company of militia and took part in the Trenton campaign in New Jersey. After this service in the field he returned to Philadelphia and was active with other merchants in providing for the needs of the army.

On 12 Nov., 1782, he was elected a member of the Congress of the old Confederacy and was among the leaders in its deliberations. He was a member of the Convention that met in Philadelphia 25 May, 1787, and framed the Constitution of the United States. Daniel Carroll of Maryland being the only other Catholic member. In this convention Fitz-Simons voted against universal suffrage and in favour of limiting it to free-holders. Under this constitution he was elected a member of the first Congress of the United States and in it served on the Committee on Ways and Means. In politics he was an ardent Federalist. He was re-elected to the second and the third Congresses, but was defeated for the fourth, in 1794, and this closed his political career. Madison wrote to Jefferson, on 16 Nov., 1794, that the failure of Fitz-Simons to be selected was a "stinging blow for the aristocracy". The records of Congress show that he was among the very first, if not the first, to advocate the fundamental principles of a protective tariff system to help American industries. When Washington was inaugurated the first president, Fitz-Simons was one of the four laymen, Charles and Daniel Carroll of Maryland, and Dominic Lynch of New York being the others, to sign the address of congratulation presented to him by the Catholics of the country. He was among the founders of Georgetown College, and was considered during his long life one of the most enlightened merchants in the United States. On all questions connected with commerce and finance his advice was always sought and regarded with respect in the operations that laid the foundation of the commercial prosperity of the new republic.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Placidus Fixlmillner

Astromomer, b. at Achleuthen near Kremsmünster, Austria, in 1721; d. at Kremsmünster, Austria, 27 August, 1791. He received his early education at Salzburg, where he displayed a talent for mathematics. He joined the Benedictines at the age of sixteen and became distinguished for his broad scholarship. In 1756 he published a small treatise entitled "Reipublicæ sacræ origines divinæ". He intended to continue this work but the transit of Venus in 1761 again aroused his interest in mathematics. Though already forty years of age he resumed his old studies with ardour, and an opportunity soon presented itself for work in astronomy. He was appointed director of the observatory of Kremsmünster, which had been established by his uncle in 1748 while abbot. His first task was to improve the equipment and have new instruments constructed, and as soon as possible he determined the latitude and longitude of the observatory. He continued in charge of the observatory until his death and by his industry accumulated a number of observations of great variety and value. He did not, however, devote all his time to astronomy. For many years he was in charge of the college connected with the abbey and at the same time acted as professor of canon law. As such he was honoured with the dignity of notary Apostolic of the Roman Court. Fixlmillner is best known for his work in astronomy. He was one of the first to compute the orbit of Uranus after its discovery by Herschel. His numerous observations of Mercury were of much service to Lalande in constructing tables of that planet. Besides the treatise already mentioned he was the author of "Meridianus speculæ astronomicæ cremifanensis" (Steyer, 1765), which treats of his observations in connexion with the latitude and longitude of his observatory, and "Decennium astronomicum" (Steyer, 1776). After his death his successor P. Derfflinger published the "Acta cremifanensia a Placido Fixlmillner" (Steyer, 1791), which contain his observations from 1776 to 1791.

SCHLICHTEGROLL, Nekrolog der Deutschen (Gotha, 1791-1806), supplement; ZACH, Ephémérides géographiques (1799); NICOLLET in Biog. Universelle, XIV.

H. M. BROCK

Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau

Physicist, b. at Paris, 23 Sept., 1819; d. at Nanteuil, Seine-et-Marne, 18 Sept., 1896. His father, a distinguished physician and professor of medicine in Paris during the Restoration, left him an independent fortune, so that he was able to devote himself to scientific research. He attended Stanislas College and then began to study medicine, but had to abandon it on account of ill-health and travelled for awhile. Then followed Arago's lessons at the Observatory, Regnault on optics at the college of France, and a thorough study of his brother's notebooks of the courses at the Ecole Polytechnique. In 1839 he became interested in the new photography and succeeded in getting permanent pictures by the daguerreotype. Foucault came to consult him about this work and became associated with him in their epoch-making experiments in optics, showing the identity of radiant heat and light, the regularity of the light vibrations, and the validity of the undulatory theory. Just as they were ready to develop the experimentum crucis (see FOUCAULT) overthrowing the emission theory, they parted company and worked independently.

Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light (1849). He used a rotating cogwheel and a fixed mirror several miles distant; light passed between two teeth of the wheel to the distant mirror and then returned. If the wheel turned fast enough to obscure the reflection, then the reflected beam struck a cog. The time it took the wheel to move the width of one tooth was then equal to the time it took the light to travel twice the distance between the wheel an the mirror. He also experimented successfully to show that the ether is carried along by moving substances, since light travels faster through a stream of water in the direction of its motion than in the opposite direction. In his measurements of vanishingly small distances, such as the expansion of crystals, he made use of the extremely small and very regular wave-length of light. His addition of a condenser in the primary circuit of the induction coil increased the effectiveness of this device considerably. On the recommendation of the Academy of Sciences he was awarded the Grand Prix (10,000 francs) of the Institute in 1856. He was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences in 1860, an a member of the Bureau des Longitudes in 1878. He received the decoration of the Legion of Honour in 1849 and became officer in 1875. In 1866 the Royal Society of London awarded him the Rumford Medal. Cornu says of him: "He was a practical and convinced Christian and did not hide that fact." In the presidential address before the academy (Comptes Rendus, 1879), Fizeau calls attention to "the dignity and independence of natural science as well as to its limits of action, preventing it from interfering in philosophic or social questions, and not permitting it to put itself in opposition to the noble emotions of the heart nor to the pure voice of conscience". Most of his published works appeared in the "Comptes Rendus" and in the "Annales de physique et de chimie". A few of the titles are: "Sur la dageurréotypie"; "Sur l'interférence entre deux rayons dans le cas de grandes différences de marche"; "Vitesse de la lumière"; "Interférence des rayons calorifiques"; "Réfraction différentielle"; "Vitesse de l'électricité"; "Dilatation des cristaux".

GRAY, Nature (London, 1896); CORNU, Annuaire pour l'an 1898 of the Bureau des Longitudes (Paris)

WILLIAM FOX

Flabellum

The flabellum, in liturgical use, is a fan made of leather, silk, parchment, or feathers intended to keep away insects from the Sacred Species and from the priest. It was in use in the sacrifices of the heathens and in the Christian Church from very early days, for in the Apostolic Constitutions, a work of the fourth century, we read (VIII, 12): "Let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a fan, made up of thin membranes, or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups". Its use was continued in the Latin Church to about the fourteenth century. In the Greek Church to the present day, the deacon, at his ordination, receives the hagion ripidion, or sacred fan, which is generally made to the likeness of a cherub's six-winged face, and in the sacrifice of the Mass he waves it gently over the species from the time of the Offertory to the Communion — in the Liturgy of St. Basil only during the Consecration. Among the ornaments found belonging to the church of St. Riquier, in Ponthieu (813), there is a silver flabellum (Migne, P. L., CLXXIV, 1257), and for the chapel of Cisoin, near Lisle, another flabellum of silver is noted in the will of Everard (died 937), the founder of that abbey. When, in 1777, Martène wrote his "Voyage Littéraire", the Abbey of Tournus, on the Saône in France, possessed an old flabellum, which had an ivory handle two feet long, and was beautifully carved; the two sides of the ivory circular disc were engraved with fourteen figures of saints. Pieces of this fan, dating from the eighth century, are in the Musée Cluny at Paris, and in the Collection Carrand. The circular disc is also found in the Slavic flabellum of the thirteenth century, preserved at Moscow, and in the one shown in the Megaspileon monastery in Greece. On this latter disc are carved the Madonna and Child and it is encircled by eight medallions containing the images of cherubim and of the Four Evangelists. The inventory, taken in 1222, of the treasury of Salisbury, enumerates a silver fan and two of parchment. The richest and most beautiful specimen is the flabellum of the thirteenth century in the Abbey of Kremsmünster in Upper Austria. It has the shape of a Greek cross and is ornamented with fretwork and the representation of the Resurrection of Our Lord. A kind of fan with a hoop of little bells is used by the Maronites and other Orientals and is generally made of silver or brass.

Apart from the foregoing liturgical uses, a flabellum, in the shape of a fan, later of an umbrella or canopy, was used as a mark of honour for bishops and princes. Two fans of this kind are used at the Vatican whenever the pope is carried in state on the sedia gestatoria to or from the altar or audience-chamber. Through the influence of Count Ditalmo di Brozza, the fans formerly used at the Vatican were, in 1902, presented to Mrs. Joseph Drexel of Philadelphia, U. S. A., by Leo XIII, and in return she gave a new pair to the Vatican. The old ones are exhibited in the museum of the University of Pennsylvania. They are splendid creations. The spread is formed of great ostrich plumes tipped with peacock feathers; on the sticks are the papal arms, worked in a crimson field in heavy gold, the crown studded with rubies and emeralds. St. Paul's Cathedral, London, had a fan made of peacock feathers, and York Cathedral's inventory mentions a silver handle of a fan, which was gilded and had upon it the enamelled picture of the bishop. Haymo, Bishop of Rochester (died 1352), gave to his church a fan of silver with an ivory handle.

ROCK, Church of our Fathers (London, 1904), II, 209; DU CANGE, Glossarium (Niort, 1885); STREBER in kirchenlexicon, s. v.; KRAUS, Gesch. der kirchl. Kunst (Freiburg, 1896), I, 552.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN.

Ælia Flaccilla

(Plakilla)

Empress, wife of Theodosius the Great, died c. a.d. 385 or 386. Like Theodosius himself, his first wife, Ælia Flaccilla, was of Spanish descent. She may have been the daughter of Claudius Antonius, Prefect of Gaul, who was consul in 382. Her marriage with Theodosius probably took place in the year 376, when his father, the comes Theodosius, fell into disfavour and he himself withdrew to Cauca in Gallæcia, for her eldest son, afterwards Emperor Arcadius, was born towards the end of the following year. In the succeeding years she presented two more children to her husband Honorius (384), who later became emperor, and Pulcheria, who died in early childhood, shortly before her mother. Gregory of Nyssa states expressly that she had three children; consequently the Gratian mentioned by St. Ambrose, together with Pulcheria, was probably not her son. Flaccilla was, like her husband, a zealous supporter of the Nicene Creed and prevented the conference between the emperor and the Arian Eunomius (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., VII, vi). On the throne she was a shining example of Christian virtue and ardent charity. St. Ambrose describes her as "a soul true to God" (Fidelis anima Deo. — "De obitu Theodosii", n. 40, in P. L., XVI, 1462). In his panegyric St. Gregory of Nyssa bestowed the highest praise on her virtuous life and pictured her as the helpmate of the emperor in all good works, an ornament of the empire, a leader of justice, an image of beneficence. He praises her as filled with zeal for the Faith, as a pillar of the Church, as a mother of the indigent. Theodoret in particular exalts her charity and benevolence (Hist. eccles., V, xix, ed. Valesius, III, 192 sq.). He tells us how she personally tended cripples, and quotes a saying of hers: "To distribute money belongs to the imperial dignity, but I offer up for the imperial dignity itself personal service to the Giver." Her humility also attracts a special meed of praise from the church historian. Flaccilla was buried in Constantinople, St. Gregory of Nyssa delivering her funeral oration. She is venerated in the Greek Church as a saint, and her feast is kept on 14 September. The Bollandists (Acta SS., Sept., IV, 142) are of the opinion that she is not regarded as a saint but only as venerable, but her name stands in the Greek Menæa and Synaxaria followed by words of eulogy, as is the case with the other saints (cf. e.g. Synaxarium eccl. Constantinopolitanæ, ed. Delehaye, Brussels, 1902, col. 46, under 14 Sept.).

GREGORY OF NYSSA, Oratio funebris de Placilla in P. G., XLVI, 877-92; THEMISTIUS, Oratio, ed. DINDORF, 637 sqq.; TILLEMONT. Histoire des empereurs, V (Brussels, 1732), 62, 109 sq., notes 33, 40 sq.; ARGLES in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Flaccilla (1); GÜLDENPENNING AND IFLAND, Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse (Halle, 1878), 56, 132.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Flagellants

A fanatical and heretical sect that flourished in the thirteenth and succeeding centuries, Their origin was at one time attributed to the missionary efforts of St. Anthony of Padua, in the cities of Northern Italy, early in the thirteenth century; but Lempp (Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XII, 435) has shown this to be unwarranted. Every important movement, however, has its forerunners, both in the idea out of which it grows and in specific acts of which it is a culmination. And, undoubtedly, the practice of self-flagellation, familiar to the folk as the ascetic custom of the more severe orders (such as the Camaldolese, the Cluniacs, the Dominicans), had but to be connected in idea with the equally familiar penitential processions popularized by the Mendicants about 1233, to prepare the way for the great outburst of the latter half of the thirteenth century. It is in 1260 that we first hear of the Flagellants at Perugia. The terrible plague of 1259, the long-continued tyranny and anarchy throughout the Italian States, the prophecies concerning Antichrist and the end of the world by Joachim of Flora and his like, had created a mingled state of despair and expectation among the devout lay-folk of the middle and lower classes. Then there appeared a famous hermit of Umbria, Raniero Fasani, who organized a brotherhood of "Disciplinati di Gesù Cristo", which spread rapidly throughout Central and Northern Italy. The brotherhoods were known by various names in various localities (Battuti, Scopatori, Verberatori, etc.), but their practices were very similar everywhere. All ages and conditions were alike subject to this mental epidemic. Clergy and laity, men and women, even children of tender years, scourged themselves in reparation for the sins of the whole world. Great processions, amounting sometimes to 10,000 souls, passed through the cities, beating themselves, and calling the faithful to repentance. With crosses and banners borne before them by the clergy, they marched slowly through the towns. Stripped to the waist and with covered faces, they scourged themselves with leathern thongs till the blood ran, chanting hymns and canticles of the Passion of Christ, entering the churches and prostrating themselves before the altars. For thirty-three days and a half this penance was continued by all who undertook it, in honour of the years of Christ's life on earth. Neither mud nor snow, cold nor heat, was any obstacle. The processions continued in Italy throughout 1260, and by the end of that year had spread beyond the Alps to Alsace, Bavaria, Bohemia, and Poland. In 1261, however, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities awoke to the danger of such an epidemic, although its undesirable tendencies, on this occasion, were rather political than theological. In January the pope forbade the processions, and the laity realized suddenly that behind the movement was no sort of ecclesiastical sanction. It ceased almost as quickly as it had started, and for some time seemed to have died out. Wandering flagellants are heard of in Germany in 1296. In Northern Italy, Venturino of Bergamo, a Dominican, afterwards beatified, attempted to revive the processions of flagellants in 1334, and led about 10,000 men, styled the "Doves", as far as Rome. But he was received with laughter by the Romans, and his followers deserted him. He went to Avignon to see the pope, by whom he was promptly relegated to his monastery, and the movement collapsed.

In 1347 the Black Death swept across Europe and devastated the Continent for the next two years. In 1348 terrible earthquakes occurred in Italy. The scandals prevalent in Church and State intensified in the popular mind the feeling that the end of all things was come. With extraordinary suddenness the companies of Flagellants appeared again, and rapidly spread across the Alps, through Hungary and Switzerland. In 1349 they had reached Flanders, Holland, Bohemia, Poland, and Denmark. By September of that year they had arrived in England, where, however, they met with but little success. The English people watched the fanatics with quiet interest, even expressing pity and sometimes admiration for their devotion; but no one could be induced to join them, and the attempt at proselytism failed utterly. Mean- while in Italy the movement, in accordance with the temperament of the people, so thorough, so ecstatic, yet so matter-of-fact and practical in religious matters, spread rapidly through all classes of the community. Its diffusion was marked and aided by the popular laudi, folk-songs of the Passion of Christ and the Sorrows of Our Lady, while in its wake there sprang up numberless brotherhoods devoted to penance and the corporal works of mercy. Thus the "Battuti" of Siena, Bologna, Gubbio, all founded Case di Dio, which were at once centres at which they could meet for devotional and penitential exercises, and hospices in which the sick and destitute were relieved. Though tendencies towards heresy soon became apparent, the sane Italian faith was unfavourable to its growth. The confraternities adapted themselves to the permanent ecclesiastical organization, and not a few of them have continued, at least as charitable associations, until the present day. It is noticeable that the songs of the Laudesi during their processions tended more and more to take on a dramatic character. From them developed in time the popular mystery-play, whence came the beginnings of the Italian drama.

As soon, however, as the Flagellant movement crossed the Alps into Teutonic countries, its whole nature changed. The idea was welcomed with enthusiasm; a ceremonial was rapidly developed, and almost as rapidly a specialized doctrine, that soon degenerated into heresy. The Flagellants became an organized sect, with severe discipline and extravagant claims. They wore a white habit and mantle, on each of which was a red cross, whence in some parts they were called the "Brotherhood of the Cross". Whosoever desired to join this brotherhood was bound to remain in it for thirty-three and a half days, to swear obedience to the "Masters" of the organization, to possess at least four pence a day for his support, to be reconciled to all men, and, if married, to have the sanction of his wife. The ceremonial of the Flagellants seems to have been much the same in all the northern cities. Twice a day, proceeding slowly to the public square or to the principal church, they put off their shoes, stripped themselves to the waist and prostrated themselves in a large circle. By their posture they indicated the nature of the sins they intended to expiate, the murderer lying on his back, the adulterer on his face, the perjurer on one side holding up three fingers, etc. First they were beaten by the "Master", then, bidden solemnly in a prescribed form to rise, they stood in a circle and scourged themselves severely, crying out that their blood was mingled with the Blood of Christ and that their penance was preserving the whole world from perishing. At the end the "Master" read a letter which was supposed to have been brought by an angel from heaven to the church of St. Peter in Rome. This stated that Christ, angry at the grievous sins of mankind, had threatened to destroy the world, yet, at the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, had ordained that all who should join the brotherhood for thirty-three and a half days should be saved. The reading of this "letter", following the shock to the emotions caused by the public penance of the Flagellants, aroused much excitement among the populace. In spite of the protests and criticism of the educated, thousands enrolled themselves in the brotherhood. Great processions marched from town to town, with crosses, lights, and banners borne before them. They walked slowly, three or four abreast, bearing their knotted scourges and chanting their melancholy hymns. As the number grew, the pretences of the leaders developed. They professed a ridiculous horror of even accidental contact with women and insisted that it was of obligation to fast rigidly on Fridays. They cast doubts on the necessity or even desirability of the sacraments, and even pretended to absolve one another, to cast out evil spirits, and to work miracles. They asserted that the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction was suspended and that their pilgrimages would be continued for thirty-three and a half years. Doubtless not a few of them hoped to establish a lasting rival to the Catholic Church, but very soon the authorities took action and endeavoured to suppress the whole movement. For, while it was thus growing in Germany and the Netherlands, it had also entered France.

At first this fatuus novus ritus was well received. As early as 1348, Pope Clement VI had permitted a similar procession in Avignon in entreaty against the plague. Soon, however, the rapid spread and heretical tendencies of the Flagellants, especially among the turbulent peoples of Southern France, alarmed the authorities. At the entreaty of the University of Paris, the pope, after careful inquiry, condemned the movement and prohibited the processions, by letters dated 20 Oct., 1349, which were sent to all the bishops of France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and England. This condemnation coincided with a natural reaction of public opinion, and the Flagellants, from being a powerful menace to all settled public order, found themselves a hunted and rapidly dwindling sect. But, though severely stricken, the Flagellant tendency was by no means eradicated. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were recrudescences of this and similar heresies. In Germany, about 1360, there appeared one Konrad Schmid, who called himself Enoch, and pretended that all ecclesiastical authority was abrogated, or rather, transferred to himself. Thousands of young men joined him, and he was able to continue his propaganda till 1369, when the vigorous measures of the Inquisition resulted in his suppression. Yet we still hear of trials and condemnations of Flagellants in 1414 at Erfurt, in 1446 at Nordhausen, in 1453 at Sangerhausen, even so late as 1481 at Halberstadt. Again the "Albati" or "Bianchi" are heard of in Provence about 1399, with their processions of nine days, during which they beat themselves and chanted the "Stabat Mater". At the end of the fourteenth century, too, the great Dominican, St. Vincent Ferrer, spread this penitential devotion throughout the north of Spain, and crowds of devotees followed him on his missionary pilgrimages through France, Spain, and Northern Italy.

In fact, the great outburst of 1349, while, perhaps, more widespread and more formidable than similar fanaticisms, was but one of a series of popular upheavals at irregular intervals from 1260 until the end of the fifteenth century. The generating cause of these movements was always an obscure amalgam of horror of corruption, of desire to imitate the heroic expiations of the great penitents, of apocalyptic vision, of despair at the prevailing corruption in Church and State. All these things are smouldering in the minds of the much-tried populace of Central Europe. It needed but a sufficient occasion, such as the accumulated tyranny of some petty ruler, the horror of a great plague, or the ardent preaching of some saintly ascetic, to set the whole of Christendom in a blaze. Like fire the impulse ran through the people, and like fire it died down, only to break out here and there anew. At the beginning of each outbreak, the effects were generally good. Enemies were reconciled, debts were paid, prisoners were released, ill-gotten goods were restored. But it was the merest revivalism, and, as always, the reaction was worse than the former stagnation. Sometimes the movement was more than suspected of being abused for political ends, more often it exemplified the fatal tendency of emotional pietism to degenerate into heresy. The Flagellant movement was but one of the manias that afflicted the end of the Middle Ages; others were the dancing-mania, the Jew-baiting rages, which the Flagellant processions encouraged in 1349, the child-crusades, and the like. And, according to the temperament of the peoples among whom it spread, the movement became a revolt and a fantastic heresy, a rush of devotion settling soon into pious practices and good works, or a mere spectacle that aroused the curiosity or the pity of the onlookers.

Although as a dangerous heresy the Flagellants are not heard of after the fifteenth century, their practices were revived again and again as a means of quite orthodox public penance. In France, during the sixteenth century, we hear of White, Black, Grey, and Blue Brotherhoods. At Avignon, in 1574, Catherine de' Medici herself led a procession of Black Penitents. In Paris, in 1583, King Henry III became patron of the "Blancs Battus de l'Annonciation". On Holy Thursday of that year he organized a great procession from the Augustinians to Notre-Dame, in which all the great dignitaries of the realm were obliged to take part in company with himself. The laughter of the Parisians, however, who treated the whole thing as a jest, obliged the king to withdraw his patronage. Early in the seventeenth century, the scandals arising among these brotherhoods caused the Parliament of Paris to suppress them, and under the combined assaults of the law, the Gallicans, and the sceptics, the practice soon died out. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Flagellant processions and self-flagellation were encouraged by the Jesuits in Austria and the Netherlands, as well as in the far countries which they evangelized. India, Persia, Japan, the Philippines, Mexico, and the States of South America, all had their Flagellant processions; in Central and South America they continue even to the present day, and were regulated and restrained by Pope Leo XIII. In Italy generally and in the Tyrol similar processions survived until the early years of the nineteenth century; in Rome itself they took place in the Jesuit churches as late as 1870, while even later they occurred in parts of Tuscany and Sicily. Always, however, these later Flagellant processions have taken place under the control of ecclesiastical authority, and must by no means he connected with the heretical epidemic of the later Middle Ages.

One of the best modern accounts of flagellation and the Flagellants is an article by HAUPT, Geisselune, kirchliche, und Geisslerbruderschaften, in Realencykl. für prot. Theol. It contains full and excellent bibliographies. Some of the original authorities for the outbreak in 1260 will be found in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist., XVII, 102-3, 105, 191, 402, 531, 714; XIX, 179. For the heresy of 1348 may be consulted: Chroniken der deutschen Städte, VII, 204 sqq.; IX, 105 sqq.; Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XXI (1881), 21 sqq.; Recueil des chroniques de Flandre, II (Bruges, 1841), 111 sqq.; FREDERICQ, Corpus documentorum inquisitionis hœreticœ pravitatis neerlandicœ, I (Ghent, 1889), 190 sqq.; BERLIÈRE, Trois traités inédits sur les Flagellants de 1349, in Revue Bénédictine, July, 1908. Good accounts are to be found in MURATORI, Antiquitt. Ital. med., œvi, VI (Milan, 1738-42), diss. lxxv; GRETSER, Opera, IV (Ratisbon, 1734), 43-5; ZÖCKLER, Askese und Mönchtum, II (Frankfort, 1897), 518, 530-7.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE.

Flagellation

The history of the whip, rod, and stick, as instruments of punishment and of voluntary penance, is a long and interesting one. The Hebrew words for "whip" and "rod", are in etymology closely related (Gesenius). Horace (Sat., I, iii) tells us not to use the horribile flagellum, made of thongs of ox-hide, when the offender deserves only the scutica of twisted parchment; the schoolmaster's ferula — Eng. ferule (Juvenal, Sat., I, i, 15) — was a strap or rod for the hand (see ferule in Skeat). The earliest Scriptural mention of the whip is in Ex., v, 14, 16 (flagellati sunt; flagellis cœdimur), where the Heb. word meaning "to strike" is interpreted in the Greek and the Latin texts, "were scourged" — "beaten with whips". Roboam said (III Kings, xii, 11, 14; II Par., x, 11, 14): "My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions", i. e. with scourges armed with knots, points, etc. Even in Latin scorpio is so interpreted by St. Isidore (Etym., v, 27), "virga nodosa vel aculeata". Old-Testament references to the rod might be multiplied indefinitely (Deut., xxv, 2, 3; II Kings, vii, 14; Job, ix, 34; Prov., xxvi, 3, etc.). In the New Testament we are told that Christ used the scourge on the money-changers (John, ii, 15); He predicted that He and His disciples would be scourged (Mat., x, 17; xx, 19); and St. Paul says: "Five times did I receive forty stripes, save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods" (II Cor., xi, 24, 25; Deut., xxv, 3; Acts, xvi, 22). The offender was to be beaten in the presence of the judges (Deut., xxv, 2, 3), but was never to receive more than forty stripes. To keep within the law, it was the practice to give only thirty-nine. The culprit was so attached to a Low pillar that he had to lean forward — " they shall lay him down", says the law, to receive the strokes. Verses of thirteen words in Hebrew were recited, the last always being: "But he is merciful, and will forgive their sins: and will not destroy them" [Ps. lxxvii (Heb. lxxviii) 38]; but the words served merely to count the blows. Moses allowed masters to use the rod on slaves; not, however, so as to cause death (Ex., xxi, 20). The flagellation of Christ was not a Jewish, but a Roman punishment, and was therefore administered all the more cruelly. It was suggested by Pilate's desire to save Him from crucifixion, and this was inflicted only when the scourging had failed to satisfy the Jews. In Pilate's plan flagellation was not a preparation, but rather a substitute, for crucifixion.

As the earliest monuments of Egypt make the scourge or whip very conspicuous, the children of Israel cannot have been the first on whom the Egyptians used it. In Assyria the slaves dragged their burdens under the taskmaster's lash. In Sparta even youths of high social standing were proud of their stoical indifference to the scourge; while at Rome the various names for slaves (flagriones, verberones, etc.) and the significant term lorarii, used by Plautus, give us ample assurance that the scourge was not spared. However, from passages in Cicero and texts in the New Testament, we gather that Roman citizens were exempt from this punishment. The bamboo is used on all classes in China, but in Japan heavier penalties, and frequently death itself, are imposed upon offenders. The European country most conspicuous at the present day for the whipping of culprits is Russia, where the knout is more than a match for the worst scourge of the Romans. Even in what may be called our own times, the use of the whip on soldiers under the English flag was not unknown; and the State of Delaware yet believes in it as a corrective and deterrent for the criminal class. If we refer to the past, by Statute 39 Eliz., ch. iv, evil-doers were whipped and sent back to the place of their nativity; moreover, Star-chamber whippings were frequent. "In Partridge's Almanack for 1692, it is stated that Oates was whipt with a whip of six thongs, and received 2256 lashes, amounting to 13536 stripes" (A Hist. of the Rod, p. 158). He survived, however, and lived for years. The pedagogue made free use of the birch. Orbillus, who flogged Horace, was only one of the learned line who did not believe in moral suasion, while Juvenal's words: "Et nos ergo manum ferulæ subduximus" (Sat., I, i, 15) show clearly the system of school discipline existing in his day. The priests of Cybele scourged themselves and others, and such stripes were considered sacred. Although these and similar acts of penance, to propitiate heaven, were practised even before the coming of Christ, it was only in the religion established by Him that they found wise direction and real merit. It is held by some interpreters that St. Paul in the words: "I chastise my body" refers to self-inflicted bodily scourging (I Cor., ix, 27). The Greek word hypopiazo (see Liddell and Scott) means "to strike under the eye", and metaphorically "to mortify"; consequently, it can scarcely mean "to scourge", and indeed in Luke, xviii, 5, such an interpretation is quite inadmissible. Furthermore, where St. Paul certainly refers to scourging, he uses a different word. We may therefore safely conclude that he speaks here of mortification in general, as Piconio holds (Triplex Expositio).

Scourging was soon adopted as a sanction in the monastic discipline of the fifth and following centuries. Early in the fifth century it is mentioned by Palladius in the "Historia Lausiaca" (c. vi), and Socrates (Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) tells us that, instead of being excommunicated, offending young monks were scourged. See the sixth-century rules of St. Cæsarius of Aries for nuns (P. L., LXVII, 1111), and of St. Aurelian of Arles (ibid., LXVIII, 392, 401-02). Thenceforth scourging is frequently mentioned in monastic rules and councils as a preservative of discipline (Hefele, "Concilieng.", II, 594, 656). Its use as a punishment was general in the seventh century in all monasteries of the severe Columban rule (St. Columbanus, in "Regula Cœnobialis", c. x, in P. L., LXXX, 215 sqq.); for later centuries of the early Middle Ages see Thomassin, "Vet. ac nova ecc. disciplina, II (3), 107; Du Cange, "Glossar. med. et infim. latinit.", s. v. "Disciplina"; Gretser, "De spontaneâ disciplinarum seu flagellorum cruce libri tres" (Ingolstadt, 1603); Kober, "Die körperliche Züchtigung als kirchliches Strafmittel gegen Cleriker und Mönche" in Tüb. "Quartalschrift" (1875). The Canon law (Decree of Gratian, Decretals of Gregory IX) recognized it as a punishment for ecclesiastics; even as late as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it appears in ecclesiastical legislation as a punishment for blasphemy, concubinage, and simony. Though doubtless at an early date a private means of penance and mortification, such use is publicly exemplified in the tenth and eleventh centuries by the lives of St. Dominic Loricatus (P. L., CXLIV, 1017) and St. Peter Damian (died 1072). The latter wrote a special treatise in praise of self-flagellation; though blamed by some contemporaries for excess of zeal, his example and the high esteem in which he was held did much to popularize the voluntary use of the scourge or "discipline" as a means of mortification and penance. Thenceforth it is met with in most medieval religious orders and associations. The practice was, of course, capable of abuse, and so arose in the thirteenth century the fanatical sect of the Flagellants, though in the same period we meet with the private use of the "discipline" by such saintly persons as King Louis IX and Elizabeth of Thuringia.

UNGER, Die Flagellanten (1902); COOPER (pseudonym), Flagellation and the Flagellants, A History of the Rod, etc. (new ed., London, 1896), an anti-Catholic and biased work; BARNEY, Circumcision and Flagellation among the Filipinos (Carlisle, Pa., 1903); CALMET'S Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Scourging; KITTO, Cyclop. of Biblical Lit., s. v. Punishment.

JOHN J. TIERNEY.

Benedict Joseph Flaget

First Bishop of Bardstown (subsequently of Louisville), Kentucky, U.S.A., b. at Contournat, near Billom, Auvergne, France, 7 November, 1763; d. 11 February, 1850, at Louisville, Kentucky. He was a posthumous child and was only two years old when his mother died, leaving him and two brothers to the care of an aunt; they were welcomed at the home of Canon Benoît Flaget, their uncle, at Billom. In his seventeenth year, he went to the Sulpician seminary of Clermont to study philosophy and theology, and joining the Society of St. Sulpice, 1 November, 1783, he was ordained priest in 1787, at Issy, where Father Gabriel Richard, the future apostle of Michigan, was then superior. Flaget taught dogmatic theology at Nantes for two years, and filled the same chair at the seminary of Angers when that house was closed by the Revolution. He returned to Billom in 1791 and on the advice of the Sulpician superior, Father Emery, determined to devote himself to the American mission. He sailed in January, 1792, with Father J. B. M. David, his future coadjutor, and the subdeacon Stephen Badin, landing in Baltimore, 29 March, 1792. He was studying English with his Sulpician brethren, when Bishop Carroll tested his self-sacrifice by sending him to Fort Vincennes, as missionary to the Indians and pastor of the Fort. Crossing the mountains he reached Pittsburg, where he had to tarry for six months owing to low water in the Ohio, doing such good work that he gained the lasting esteem of General Anthony Wayne. The latter recommended him to the military commander Colonel Clark, at the Falls of the Ohio, who deemed it an honour to escort him to Fort Vincennes, where he arrived 21 December, 1792. Father Flaget stayed here two years and then, recalled by his superiors, he became professor at the Georgetown College under the presidency of Father Dubourg. In November, 1798, he was sent to Havana, whence he returned in 1801 with twenty-three students to Baltimore.

On 8 April, 1808, Bardstown, Kentucky, was created a see and Flaget was named its first bishop. He refused the honour and his colleagues of St. Sulpice approved his actiion, but when in 1809 he went to Paris, his superior, Father Emery, received him with the greeting: "My Lord, you should be in your diocese! The pope commands you to accept." Leaving France with Father Simon William Bruté, the future Bishop of Vincennes, and the subdeacon, Guy Ignatius Chabrat, his future coadjutor in Kentucky. Flaget landed in Baltimore, and was consecrated 4 November, 1810, by Archbishop Carroll. The Diocese of Bardstown comprised the whole North-West, bounded East and West by Louisiana and the Mississippi. Bishop Flaget, handicapped by poverty, did not leave Baltimore until 11 May, 1811, and reached Louisville, 4 June, whence the Rev. C. Nerinckx escorted him to Bardstown. He arrived there 9 June. On Christmas of that year he ordained priest the Rev. Guy Ignatius Chabrat, the first priest ordained in the West. Before Easter, 1813, he had established priestly conferences, a seminary at St. Stephen's (removed to St. Thomas', November, 1811), and made two pastoral visits in Kentucky. That summer he visited the outlying districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Eastern Missouri, confirming 1275 people during the trip.

Bishop Flaget's great experience, absolute self-denial, and holy life gave him great influence in the councils of the Church and at Rome. Most of the bishops appointed within the next twenty years were selected with his advice. In October, 1817, he went to St. Louis to prepare the way for Bishop Dubourg. He recommended Bishop Fenwick for Ohio, then left on a trip through that State, Indiana, and Michigan in 1818. In the latter State he did great missionary work at Detroit and Monroe, attending also a rally of 10,000 Indians at St. Mary's. Upon his return to Kentucky in 1819 he consecrated his new cathedral in Bardstown, 8 August, and consecrated therein his first coadjutor bishop, Rev. J. B. M. David, on the 15th. In 1821 he started on a visitation of Tennessee, and bought property in Nashville for the first Catholic church. The years 1819 to 1821 were devoted to missionary work among the Indians. He celebrated the first Synod of Bardstown, 8 August, 1823, and continued his labours until 1828, when he was called to Baltimore to consecrate Archbishop Whitfield; there he attended the first Council of Baltimore in 1829. In 1830 he consecrated one of his own priests, Rev. Richard Kenrick, as Bishop of Philadelphia. A great friend of education, he invited the Jesuits to take charge of St. Mary's College, Bardstown, in 1832. In the meantime he had resigned his see in favour of Bishop David with Bishop Chabrat as coadjutor. Both priests and people rebelled, and their representations were so instant and continued that Rome recalled its appointment and reinstated Bishop Flaget, who during all this time was, regardless of age and infirmities, attending the cholera-stricken in Louisville, Bardstown, and surrounding country during 1832 and 1833. Bishop Chabrat became his second coadjutor and was consecrated 20 July, 1834. Only Kentucky and Tennessee were now left under Flaget's jurisdiction, and in the former he founded various religious institutions, including four colleges, two convents, one foundation of brothers, and two religious institutions of priests. Tennessee became a diocese with see at Nashville in 1838.

His only visit to Europe and Rome was not undertaken until 1835. He spent four years in France and Italy in the interests of his diocese and of the propogation of the Faith, visiting forty-six dioceses. Everywhere he edified the people by the sanctity of his life, and well authenticated miracles are ascribed to his intercession. He returned to America in 1839, transferred his see to Louisville, and crowned his fruitful life by consecrating, 10 September, 1848, a young Kentucky priest, Martin John Spalding, as his third coadjutor and successor in the see of Louisville. The corner-stone of the cathedral of Louisville was laid 15 August, 1849. He died peacefully at Louisville, sincerely mourned and remembered to this day. His only writings are his journal and a report of his diocese to the Holy See.

      Spalding, Life, Times and Character of Benedict Joseph Flaget (Louisville, 1852); Shea, Hist. Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1904); Webb, The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884).

Camillus P. Maes

Thomas Canon Flanagan

Born in England in 1814, though Irish by descent; died at Kidderminster, 21 July, 1865. He was educated at Sedgley Park School. At the age of eighteen he proceeded to Oscott — that is "Old Oscott", now known as Maryvale — to study for the priesthood. The president at that time was Dr. Weedall, under whose supervision the present imposing college buildings were about to be erected. The students and professors migrated there in 1838, after the summer vacation, Flanagan being thus one of the original students at the new college. There he was ordained in 1842, Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) Wiseman being then president. At this time Oscott was the centre of much intellectual activity, many of the Oxford converts during the following years visiting the college, where some made their first acquaintance with Catholic life. Flanagan, who throughout his course had been an industrious and persevering student, was asked by Wiseman to remain as a professor, and as such he came into contact with the new converts, his own bent towards historical studies creating a strong bond of sympathy between him and those who had become convinced of the truth of Catholicism on historical grounds.

In 1847 Flanagan brought out his first book, a small manual of British and Irish history, containing numerous statistical tables the preparation of which was congenial to his methodical mind. The same year he became prefect of studies and acted successfully in that capacity until 1850, when he was appointed vice-president and then president of Sedgley Park School, and he became one of the first canons of the newly formed Birmingham Diocese in 1851. The active life of administration was, however, not congenial to his tastes, and he was glad to resume his former position at Oscott in 1853. It was at this time that he began writing his chief work, a "History of the Church in England". In order to allow him more leisure for this, he was appointed chaplain to the Hornyold family at Blackmore Park, and his history appeared in two volumes, during his residence there, in 1857. It was at that time the only complete work on the Church in England continued down to present times, and, though marred by some inaccuracies, on the whole it bore witness to much patient work and research on the part of the author. His style, however, was somewhat concise, and Bishop Ullathorne's remark, that Canon Flanagan was a compiler of history rather than a vivid historian, has often been quoted. The year after the appearance of his Church history, we find Flanagan once more installed in his old position as prefect of studies at Oscott, where he remained for eighteen months, when his health gave way. The last years of his life were spent as assistant priest at St. Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham. He died at Kidderminster, whither he had gone for his health.

BERNARD WARD

Flanders

(Flem. VLAENDEREN; Ger. FLANDEREN; Fr. FLANDRE).

Designated in the eighth century a small territory around Bruges; it became later the name of the country bounded by the North Sea, the Scheldt, and the Canche; in the fifteenth century it was even used by the Italians and the Spaniards as the synonym for the Low Countries; to-day Flanders belongs for the most part to Belgium, comprising the provinces of East Flanders and West Flanders. A part of it, known as French Flanders, has gone to France, and another small portion to Holland.

Flanders is an unpicturesque lowland, whose level is scarcely above that of the sea, which accounts for the fact that a great part of it was for a long time flooded at high water. The country took its present aspect only after a line of downs had been raised by the sea along its shore. The soil of Flanders, which for the most part was unproductive, owes its present fertility to intelligent cultivation; its products are various, but the most important are flax and hemp; dairying, market-gardening, and the manufacture of linens are the main Flemish industries. At the time of its conquest by the Romans, Flanders was inhabited by the Morini, the Menapii, and the Nervii. Most probably these tribes were of partly Teutonic and partly Celtic descent, but, owing to the almost total absence of Roman colonies and the constant influx of barbarians, the Germanic element soon became predominant. The Flemings of to-day may be considered as a German people whose language, a Low-German dialect, has been very slightly, if at all, influenced by Latin.

It is likely that Christianity was first introduced into Flanders by Roman soldiers and merchants, but its progress must have been very slow, for Saint Eloi (Eligius, c. 590-660) tells us that in his days almost the whole population was still heathen, and the conversion of the Flemings was not completed until the beginning of the eighth century. Towards the middle of the ninth century, the country around Bruges was governed by a marquess or "forester" named Baldwin, whose bravery in fighting the Northmen had won him the surname of Iron Arm. Baldwin married Judith, daughter of the Emperor Charles the Bald, and received from his father-in-law, with the title of count, the country bounded by the North Sea, the Scheldt, and the Canche. Thus was founded, in 864, the County of Flanders. Baldwin I was a warm protector of the clergy, and made large grants of land to churches and abbeys. He died in 878. His successors were Baldwin II, the Bald (878-919), Arnold I (919-964), Baldwin III (958-961), and Arnold II (964-989), who could not prevent Hugh Capet from annexing the County of Boulogne to the royal domain of France. The son of Arnold II, Baldwin IV, the Bearded (989-1036), was a brave and pious prince. He received from the Emperor Henry II the imperial castle of Ghent and its territory. From that time there were two Flanders: Flanders under the Crown, a French fief; and imperial Flanders, under the suzerainty of Germany. Baldwin V, of Lille (1036-67), added to his domains the County of Eenhan or Alost. He was regent of France during the minority of Philip I. Baldwin VI, of Mons (1067-70), was also Count of Hainault in consequence of his marriage to Richilde, heiress of that county. He reigned only three years, and was succeeded in Flanders by his brother Robert the Friesman (1070-1093). Robert II, of Jerusalem (1093-1111), took a leading part in the First Crusade. He annexed Tournai to Flanders and died fighting for his suzerain. His son Baldwin VII, Hapkin (1111-1119), enforced strict justice among the nobility. Like his father, he died while supporting the cause of his suzerain. His successor was Charles, son of Saint Canute of Denmark (1119-27). The new count was a saintly prince and a great lover of peace. His stern justice, however, angered a few greedy nobles, who murdered him while he was praying in the church of Saint-Donat in Bruges. Louis VI, King of France, then gave the County of Flanders to William of Normandy, a grandson of the Conqueror, but William's high-handed way of governing the country soon made him unpopular and the Flemings turned to Thierry of Alsace, a descendant of Robert I. William died in the war which ensued, and Thierry's candidacy received the royal sanction. Thierry (1128-68) granted privileges to the Flemish communes, whose origin dates from this period, and took part in the Second Crusade. His son Philip (1168-91) granted new privileges to the communes, did much to foster commerce and industry, and was a generous protector of poets. He made a political blunder when he gave up Artois to France as the dowry of his niece, as this dismemberment of the county led to many wars with the latter country. Philip died in the Holy Land during the Third Crusade. His successor was his brother-in-law, Baldwin VIII, the Bold, of Hainault (1191-95). Baldwin IX (1195-1205) is famous in history as the first Latin Emperor of Constantinople. He died in 1205 in a war against the Bulgarians, and the Counties of Flanders and Hainault passed to his daughter Jeanne, who had married Ferdinand of Portugal. This prince was involved in the war of King John of England against Philip II of France, and was made a prisoner at the battle of Bouvines (1214). He was released in 1228, only to die shortly afterwards. Jeanne (1205-1244) administered the counties wisely during her husband's captivity, and after his death she increased the liberties of the communes to counteract the influence of the nobility--a policy which was followed by her sister Margaret, who succeeded her in 1244. Upon Margaret's death, in 1279, her children by her first husband (Bouchard d'Avesnes) inherited Hainault, while Flanders went to the Dampierres, her children by her second husband.

The battle of Bouvines was the beginning of a new era in the history of Flanders. Up to that time the counts had occupied the foreground; their place was henceforth taken by the communes, whose power reaches its acme in the course of the thirteenth century. Bruges, the Venice of the North, had then a population of more than 200,000 inhabitants; its fairs were the meeting place of the merchants of all Europe; Ghent and Ypres had each more than 50,000 men engaged in the cloth industry. This commercial and industrial activity, in which the rural classes had their share, brought to Flanders a wealth which manifested itself everywhere--in the buildings, in the fare of the inhabitants, in their dress. "I thought I was the only queen here," said the wife of Philip the Fair on a visit to Bruges, "but I see hundreds of queens around me." The intellectual and artistic activity of the time was no less remarkable. Then flourished Henry of Ghent, the Solemn Doctor; Van Maerlant, the great Flemish poet, and his continuator, Louis van Velthem; Philip Mussche, the chronicler, who became Bishop of Tournai; and the mystic Jan van Ruysbroeck. Then, too, were built the beautiful guild-halls, city-halls, and churches, which bear witness at once to the popular love for the fine arts and Flemish religious zeal-the guild-halls of Bruges and Ypres, the churches of the Holy Saviour and of Our Lady at Bruges, those of Saint-Bavon, Saint-Jacques and Saint-Nicolas at Ghent, and of Saint-Martin at Ypres. Still more worthy of admiration was the internal organization of the communes, which, owing to the beneficent influence of the Church, had become so powerful a factor in the moral welfare of the masses. Guy of Dampierre (1279-1305) succeeded his mother Margaret, and inaugurated a new policy in the administration of the county. His predecessors had on the whole been friendly to the wealthy classes in the Flemish cities, in whose hands were the most important offices of the communes. Guy, who aimed at absolute rule, sought the support of the guilds in his conflict with the rich. The latter appealed from his decisions to the King of France, the wily Philip the Fair, who readily seized upon this opportunity of weakening the power of his most important vassal. Philip constantly ruled against the count, who finally appealed to arms, but was defeated. Flanders then received a French governor, but the tyranny of the French soon brought about an insurrection, in the course of which some 3000 French were slaughtered in Bruges, and at the call of the two patriots, de Coninck and Breydel, the whole country rose in arms. Philip sent into Flanders a powerful army, which met with a crushing defeat at Courtrai (1302); after another battle, which remained undecided, the King of France resorted to diplomacy, but in vain, and peace was restored only in 1320, after Pope John XXII had induced the Flemings to accept it. Guy of Dampierre, who died in prison in 1305, was succeeded by his son Robert of Béthune, who had an uneventful reign of seventeen years. The successor of the latter was his grandson, Louis of Nevers (1322-1346), who was unfit for the government of Flanders on account of the French education he had received. Shortly after his accession, the whole country was involved in a civil war, which ended only after the Flemings had been defeated at Cassel by the King of France (1328).

At the breaking out of the Hundred Years War, the Flemish communes, whose prosperity depended on English wool, followed the advice of Ghent's great citizen, Jacques van Artevelde, and remained neutral; the count and nobility took the part of the French king. When the policy of neutrality could no longer be adhered to, the Flemings sided with the English and helped them to win the battle of Sluis (1340). By that time Van Artevelde had become practically master of the country, which was very prosperous under his rule. He was murdered in 1345, and Louis of Nevers was killed the next year at the battle of Crécy. His son Louis of Male (1346-1384) was a spendthrift. The communes paid his debts several times, but they finally refused to give him any more money. He managed, however, to get some from Bruges by granting to that city a licence to build a canal, which Ghent considered a menace to her commerce. A new civil war broke out between the two cities, and peace was not restored until Charles VI of France had defeated the insurgents at Roosebeke (1382). Louis of Male's successor was his son-in-law, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy (1384-1404). This prince and his son, John the Fearless (1404-1419), being mostly interested in the affairs of France, paid little attention to those of Flanders.

The situation changed after Philip the Good, third Duke of Burgundy (1419-1467), had united under his rule the whole of the Low Countries. Philip wanted to weaken the power of the communes for the benefit of the central government, and soon picked a quarrel with Bruges, which was compelled to surrender some of its privileges. Ghent's turn came next. A contention had arisen between that city and the duke over a question of taxes. War broke out, and the army of Ghent was utterly defeated at Gavre (1452), which city had to pay a heavy fine and to surrender her privileges. In 1446, Philip created the Great Council of Flanders, which, under Charles the Bold, became the Great Council of Mechlin. Appeals from the judgments of local courts were henceforth to be made to this council, not to the Parliament of Paris as before. Thus were severed the bonds of vassalage which for six centuries had connected Flanders to France. Philip was succeeded by Charles the Bold (1467-1477), the marriage of whose daughter to Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, brought Flanders with the rest of the Low Countries under the rule of the House of Hapsburg in 1477. In 1488, the communes tried to recover their independence. The attempt was unsuccessful, and the war was disastrous for Bruges, because it hastened her approaching decline. The main causes of this decline were: the silting up of her harbour, which became inaccessible to large vessels; the discovery of America, which opened new fields for European enterprise; the dissolution of the Flemish Hanse, whose seat was in Bruges; the unintelligent policy of the dukes towards England; and the civil wars of the preceding fifty years. The prosperity of Bruges passed to Antwerp. The reign of the House of Burgundy, in many respects so harmful to Flanders, was a period of artistic splendour. To that time belong Memling and the Van Eycks, the first representatives of the Flemish school of painters. Flemish literature on the whole declined, but a Fleming, Philippe de Comines, was the leading French writer of the fifteenth century. Another Fleming of that time, Thierry Maertens of Alost, was the Gutenberg of the Low Countries. Flanders can also claim two of the greatest scientists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Simon Stevin, mathematician and engineer, and the Jesuit Father Grégoire de Saint-Vincent, whom Leibniz considered the equal of Descartes.

Although the material condition of Flanders is today very satisfactory, the country has not recovered its former prosperity. And it is not likely that it ever will, not because of any decrease in the energy of the Flemish race, but because economic conditions have changed. Intellectually the Flemings of the twentieth century are still the true sons of the glorious generations which produced Van Maerlant, Van Artevelde, Rubens, and Van Dyck; perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that they have taken the lead in promoting the prosperity of Belgium. The Flemish tongue, which during the eighteenth century had fallen so low that in 1830 it was little more than a patois, has risen again to the rank of a literary language and can claim the larger portion of the literary production of Belgium in the last seventy-five years; nay, the Flemings have even made important contributions to French literature. In the fine arts, in the sciences, in politics, their activity is no less remarkable. They have given the Belgian Parliament some of its best orators and its ablest statesmen: Malou, Jacobs, Woeste, Beernaert, Schollaert. Above all they have retained, as the most precious inheritance of the past ages, the simple, fervent, vigorous faith of the crusaders and their filial attitude towards the Church. No country sends out a larger proportion of secular and regular missionaries, some of whom (like Father P. J. De Smet, the apostle of the American Indians) have attained a world-wide celebrity. Flanders may, indeed, be considered the bulwark of Catholicism in Belgium. The Socialists are well aware of this fact, but the Catholics realize it just as clearly, and their defence is equal to the enemy's attack. Every Flemish community has its parochial schools; the Catholic press is equal to its task; and the "Volk" of Ghent has been organized to counteract the evil influence of the Socialist "Voruit".

KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Hist. de Flandre (Brussels, 1848-50); MOKE AND HUBERT, Hist. de Belgique (Brussels, 1895); KURTH, Origines de la Civilisation Moderne (Brussels, 1886); HYMANS, Histoire parlementaire de la Belgique (Brussels, 1877-1906).

P.J. MARIQUE

Jean-Hippolyte Flandrin

French painter, b. at Lyons, 23 March, 1809; d. at Rome, 21 March, 1864. He came of a family of poor artisans and was a pupil of the sculptor Legendre and of Revoil. In his education, however, two elements must above all be taken into account. The first is the Lyonnaise genius. Various causes, physical and historical, have combined to give the city of Lyons a character all its own. This is twofold — religious and democratic — and the labouring classes have always been an active centre of idealism. This is especially noticeable in its poets, from Maurice Scève to Lamartine. Lyons has also always been the great entrepôt for Italy, and the province was a permanent centre of Roman culture. The second factor in Flandrin's development was the influence of Ingres, without which it is doubtful whether Flandrin would have achieved any fame. In 1829 Flandrin, with his brother Jean-Paul (the landscape painter), went to Paris, where he became a pupil of Ingres, who conceived a paternal affection for him. In Paris the young man experienced the bitterest trials. He was often without a fire, sometimes without bread, but he was sustained by a quiet but unshakable faith, and finally (1832) carried off the Grand Prix de Rome through "The Recognition of Theseus by his Father". At Rome, where, after 1834, Ingres was director of the French Academy, his talents expanded and blossomed under the influence of natural beauty, a mild climate, and the noble spectacle of the works of classic and Christian antiquities. He sent thence to the French salons: "Dante and Virgil" (Lyons Museum, 1835); "Euripides" (Lyons Museum, 1835); "St. Clare Healing the Blind" (Cathedral of Nantes, 1836); "Christ Blessing the Children" (Lisieux Museum, 1837). The serenity of his nature, his chaste sense of form and beauty, his taste for effective disposition of details, his moral elevation, and profound piety, found expression in these early efforts. On his return to Paris, in 1838, he was all intent upon producing great religious works.

At this time there sprang up throughout the French School a powerful reaction against "useless pictures", against the conventional canvases exhibited since the end of the eighteenth century (Quatremère de Quincy, "Notices historiques", Paris, 1834, 311). There was a return to an art more expressive of life, less arbitrary, more mural and decorative. Delacroix, Chassériau, and the aged Ingres were engaged on mural paintings. It was above all, however, the walls of the churches which offered an infinite field to the decorators, to Chassériau, Victor Mottez, Couture, and Amaury Duval. Within fifteen or twenty years this great pictorial movement, all too obscure, left on the walls of the public buildings and churches of Paris pictorial treasures such as had not been seen since the age of Giotto. It is possible, and even probable that the first impulse towards this movement (especially so far as religious paintings are concerned) was due to the Nazarene School. Ingres had known Overbeck and Steinle at Rome; Flandrin may well have known them. In any case it is these artists whom he resembles above all in purity of sentiment and profound conviction, though he possessed a better artistic education. From 1840 his work is scarcely more than a painstaking revival of religious painting. The artist made it his mission in France to serve art more brilliantly than ever, for the glory of God, and to make beauty, as of old, a source of instruction and an instrument of edification to the great body of the faithful. He found a sort of apostolate before him. He was one of the petits prédicateurs de l'Evangile. Artistic productions in the mid-nineteenth century, as in the Middle Ages, became the Biblia Pauperum.

Henceforth Flandrin's life was passed almost entirely in churches, hovering between heaven and earth on his ladders and scaffolds. His first work in Paris was in the chapel of St-Jean in the church of St-Séverin. He next decorated the sanctuary and choir of the church of St-Germain-des-Prés (1842-48). On either side of the sanctuary he painted "Christ's Entry into Jerusalem" and "The Journey to Calvary", besides the figures of the Apostles and the symbols of the Evangelists. All these are on a gold background with beautiful arabesques which recall the mosaic of Torriti at Santa Maria Maggiore. At St. Paul, Nîmes (1847-49), he painted a lovely garland of virgin martyrs, a prelude to his masterpiece, the frieze in the nave of the church of St-Vincent-de-Paul in Paris. The last is a double procession, developing symmetrically between the two superimposed arches, without any exaggeration, a Christian Panathenæa, as it was called by Théophile Gautier. It might be shown how the ancient Greek theme is subjected, in the work of the modern painter, to a more flexible, less uniform, and more complex rhythm, how the melodic procession, without losing any of its grandeur or its continuity, is strengthened by silences, pauses, cadences. But it is more important to note the originality in the return to the most authentic sources of Christian iconography. Hitherto painters of this class hardly went back beyond the fourteenth or fifteenth century. But Flandrin turned to the first centuries of the Church, and drew his inspiration from the very fathers of religious thought. In the frieze of St-Vincent-de-Paul fifteen centuries of Christian tradition are unrolled. In 1855 the artist executed a new work in the apse of the church of Ainay near Lyons. On his return he undertook his crowning work, the decoration of the nave of St-Germain-des-Prés. He determined to illustrate the life of Christ, not from an historical, but from a theological, point of view, the point of view of eternity. He dealt less with facts than with ideas. His tendency to parallelism, to symmetry, found its element in the symbolism of the Middle Ages. He took pleasure in considering, according to this system of harmony and relations, the Old Testament as the prototype of the New, the burning bush as representing the Annunciation, and the baptism of Christ as prefiguring the crossing of the Red Sea.

It was, perhaps, the first time since the frescoes of Perugino and Botticelli in the Sistine Chapel, that Christian art returned to its ancient genius. The interrupted tradition was renewed after three centuries of the Renaissance. Unhappily the form, despite its sustained beauty, possesses little originality. It is lacking in personality. The whole series, though exhibiting a high degree of learning and poise, of grace, and even of strength, lacks charm and life. The colouring is flat, crude, and dull, the design neutral, unaccented, and commonplace. It is a miracle of spiritual power that the seriousness of thought, the truth of sentiment, more harsh in the Old Testament, and more tender in the Christian, scenes, glow through this pedantic and poor style. Certain scenes, such as "The Nativity", which strongly recalls that of Giotto at Padua, possess a sweetness which is quite human in their conventional reserve. Others, such as "Adam and Eve after the Fall", and "The Confusion of Tongues", are marked by real grandeur. This was Flandrin's last work. He was preparing a "Last Judgment" for the cathedral of Strasburg, when he went to Rome, where he died.

Apart from his religious work, Flandrin is the author of some very charming portraits. In this branch of painting he is far from possessing the acute and powerful sense of life of which Ingres possessed the secret. Nevertheless, pictures such as the "Young Girl with a Pink", and the "Young Girl Reading", of the Louvre, will always be admired. Nothing could be more maidenly and yet profound. His portraits of men are at times magnificent. Thus in the "Napoleon III" of the Versailles Museum the pale massive countenance of Caesar and his dream-troubled eyes reveal the impress of destiny. An admirable "Study of a Man" in the Museum of the Louvre, is quite "Ingresque" in its perfection, being almost equal to that master's Oedipus. What was lacking to the pupil in order that the artistic side of his work should equal its merits from the religious and philosophic side was the power of always painting in the style displayed in this portrait.

DELABORDE, Lettres et pensées d'Hippolyte Flandrin (Paris, 1865); BLANC, Artistes de mon temps (Paris, 18—), 263; Gazette des Beaux-Arts, XVII (1864), 105, 243; XVIII (1865), 63, 187; XXIV (1868), 20; GAUTIER, Les Beaux-Arts en Europe, 1855, I, 283; MAURICE HAMEL in Musée d'art, Paris, no date, II, 86.

LOUIS GILLET

Flathead Indians

A name used in both Americas, without special ethnologic significance, to designate tribes practising the custom of compressing the skull in infancy by artificial means. Curiously enough the tribe best known under this name, the Salish or Flathead proper of Western Montana, never practised the custom, the confusion arising from the fact that the early traders felt compelled to adopt the local Indian classification, which considered the prevailing compressed skull of the neighbouring tribes as pointed and the naturally shaped Salish skull by contrast as flat. The Salish or Flathead Indians of the mountain region of north-western Montana are the easternmost tribe of the great Salishan stock which occupied much of the Columbia and Fraser River region westward to the Pacific. Although never a large tribe, they have always maintained an exceptional reputation for bravery, honesty, and general high character and for their friendly disposition towards the whites. When first known, about the beginning of the last century, they subsisted chiefly by hunting and the gathering of wild roots, particularly camas, dwelt in skin tipis or mat-covered lodges, and were at peace with all tribes excepting their hereditary enemies, the powerful Blackfeet. Their religion was the ordinary animism of the Indians and they had a number of ceremonial dances, apparently including the Sun Dance. Having learned through the Catholic Iroquois of the Hudson Bay Company something of the Catholic religion, they voluntarily adopted its simpler forms and prayers, and in 1831 sent a delegation all the long and dangerous way to St. Louis to ask of the resident government Indian superintendent that missionaries be sent to them. This was not then possible and other delegations were sent, until in 1840 the noted Jesuit Father Pierre De Smet (q.v.) responded and was welcomed on his arrival in their country by a great gathering of some 1600 Indians of the allied mountain tribes. In 1841 he founded on Bitter Root river the mission of St. Mary, which was abandoned in 1850, in consequence of the inroads of the Blackfeet, for the new mission of St. Ignatius on Flathead Lake. This still exists in successful operation, practically all the confederated Indians of the reservation-Flathead, Pend d'Oreille, Kutenai, and Spokan-having been consistent Catholics for half a century.

In 1855 the Flatheads made a treaty ceding most of their territory, but retaining a considerable reservation south of Flathead Lake and including the mission. They number now about 620, the confederated body together numbering 2200 souls, being one of the few Indian communities actually increasing in population. They are prosperous and industrious farmers and stockmen, moral, devoted Catholics, and in every way a testimony to the zeal and ability of their religious teachers, among whom, besides De Smet, may be named such distinguished Jesuit priests and scholars as Canestrelli, Giorda, Mengarini, Point, and Ravalli, several of whom have made important contributions to Salishan philology. The mission is (1908) in charge of Rev. L. Tallman, assisted by several Jesuits, together with a number of Christian Brothers, Sisters of providence, and Ursulines.

Director's Report of the Bureau of Catholic Ind. Missions (Washington, 1906); CLARK, The Indian Sign Language (Philadelphia, 1885); RONAN, Sketch of the Flathead Nation (Helena, Mont., 1890); SHEA, Hist. of the Catholic Missions, etc. (New York, 1854); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); IDEM, Western Missions and Missionaries (New York, 1863); STEVENS in Rept. of Com. of Ind. Affairs (Washington, 1854); O'CONNOR, The Fladhead Indians in Records of The Am. Cath. Hist. Soc. (Philadelphia, 1888), III, 85-110; POST, Worship Among the Flatheads and Kaliopels in The Messenger (New York, 1894), 528-29.

JAMES MOONEY

Ven. Mathew Flathers

(Alias Major).

An English priest and martyr; b. probably c. 1580 at Weston, Yorkshire, England; d. at York, 21 March, 1607. He was educated at Douai, and ordained at Arras, 25 March, 1606. Three months later he was sent to English mission, but was discovered almost immediately by the emissaries of the Government, who, after the Gunpowder Plot, had redoubled their vigilance in hunting down the priests of the proscribed religion. He was brought to trial, under the statute of 27 Elizabeth, on the charge of receiving orders abroad, and condemned to death. By an act of unusual clemency, this sentence was commuted to banishment for life; but after a brief exile, the undaunted priest returned to England in order to fulfil his mission, and, after ministering for a short time to his oppressed coreligionists in Yorkshire was again apprehended. Brought to trial at York on the charge of being ordained abroad and exercising priestly functions in England, Flathers was offered his life on condition that he take the recently enacted Oath of Allegiance. On his refusal, he was condemned to death and taken to the common place of execution outside Micklegate Bar, York. The usual punishment of hanging, drawing, and quatering seems to have been carried out in a peculiarly brutal manner, and eyewitnesses relate how the tragic spectacle excited the commiseration of the crowds of Protestant spectators.

H.G. WINTERSGILL

Flavia Domitilla

A Christian Roman matron of the imperial family who lived towards the close of the first century. She was the third of three persons (mother, daughter, and grand-daughter) who bore the same name. The first of these was the wife of the Emperor Vespasian; the second was his daughter and sister to the Emperors Titus artd Dornitian; her daughter, the third Domitilla, married her mother's first cousin to Titus Flavius Clemens, a nephew of the Emperor Vespasian and first cousin to Titan and Domitian. From this union there were born two sons, who, while children, were adopted as his successors by Domitian and commanded to assume the names Vespasianus and Domitianus. It is quite probable that these two lads had been brought up as Christians by their pious mother, and the possibility thus presents itself that two Christian boys at the end of the first century were designated for the imperial purple in Rome. Their later fate is not known, as the Flavian line ended with Domitian. Clement, their father, was the emperor's colleague in the consular dignity, but had no sooner laid down his office than he was tried on charges of the most trivial character (ex tenuissimâ suspicione -- Suetonius, Vita Domit.). Dio Cassius (lxvii, 14) says that husband and wife alike were guilty of atheism and practice of Jewish rites and customs. Such accusations, as is clear from the works of the Christian apologists, could have meant nothing else than that both had become Christians. Though doubts have been expressed, because of the silence of Christian tradition on the subject, as to whether Clement was a Christian, the affirmative view is considerably strengthened by the further accusation of Suetonius that he was a man of the most contemptible inactivity (contemptissimae inertiae). Such charge is easily explained on the ground that Clement found most of the duties of his office as consul so incompatible with Christian faith and practice as to render total abstention from public life almost an absolute necessity. In the case of Domitilla no doubt can remain, since De Rossi showed that the "Coemeterium Domitillae" (see EARLY CHRISTIAN CEMETERIES) was situated on ground belonging to the Flavia Domitilla who was banished for her faith, and that it was used as a Christian burial place as early as the first century. As a result of the accusations made against them Clement was put to death, and Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of Pandataria in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Eusebius (H.E., III, 18; Chron. ad an. Abrahami, 2110), the spurious acts of Nereus and Achilles, and St. Jerome (Ep., CVIII, 7) represent Flavia Domitilla as the niece, not the wife ot the consul Flavius Clemens, and say that her place of exile was Pontia, an island also situated in the Tyrrrhenian Sea. These statements have given rise to the opinion that there were two Domitillas (aunt and niece) who were Christians, and latter generally referred to as Flavia Domitilla the Younger. Lightfoot has shown that this opinion, adopted by Tillemont and De Rossi and still maintained by many writers (among them Allard and Duchesne), is derived entirely from Eusebius who was led into this error by mistakes in transcription, or ambiguity of expression, in the sources which he used.

P.J. HEALY

St. Flavian

Bishop of Constantinople, date of birth unknown; d. at Hypaepa in Lydia, August, 449. Nothing is known of him before his elevation to the episcopate save that he was a presbyter and skeuophylax or sacristan, of the Church of Constantinople, and noted for the holiness of his life. His succession to St. Proclus as bishop was in opposition to the wishes of the eunuch Chrysaphius minister of Emperor Theodosius, who sought to bring him into imperial disfavour. He persuaded the emperor to require of the new bishop certain eulogiae on the occasion of his appointment, but scornfully rejected the proffered blessed bread on the plea that the emperor desired gifts of gold. Flavian's intrepid refusal, on the ground of the impropriety of thus disposing of church the treasures, aroused considerable enmity against him. Pulcheria, the emperor's sister, being Flavian's staunch advocate Chrysaphius secured the support of the Empress Eudocia. Although their first efforts to involve St. Flavian in disgrace miscarried, an opportunity soon presented itself. At a council of bishops convened at Constantinople by Flavian, 8 Nov., 448, to settle a dispute which had arisen among his clergy, the the archimandrite Eutyches, who was a relation of Chrysaphius was accused of heresy by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. (For the proceedings of the council see EUSEBIUS OF DORYLAEUM; EUTYCHES.) Flavian exercised clemency and urged moderation, but in the end the refusal of Eutyches to make an orthodox declaration on the two natures of Christ forced Flavian to pronounce the sentence of degradation and excommunication. He forwarded a full report of the council to Pope Leo I, who in turn gave his approval to Flavian's decision (21 May, 449) and the following month (13 June) sent him his famous "Dogmatic Letter". Eutyches' complaint that justice had been violated in the council and that the Acts had been tampered with resulted in an imperial order for the revision of Acts, executed (8 and 27 April, 449). No materior could be established, and Flavian was justified.

The long-standing rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinoble now became a strong factor in the dissensions. It had been none the less keen since the See of Constantinoble had been officially declared next in dignity to Rome, and Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, was quite ready to join forces with Eutyches against Flavian. Even before the revision of the Acts of Flavian's council, Chrysaphius had persuaded the emperor of the necessity for an oecumenical council to adjust matters, and the decree went forth that one should convene at Ephesus under the presidency of Dioscurus, who also controlled the attendance of bishops, Flavian and six bishops who had assisted at the previous synod were allowed no voice, being, as it were, on trial. (For a full account of the proceedings see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF). Eutyches was absolved of heresy, and despite the protest of the papal legate Hilary (later pope), who by his Contradicitur annulled the decisions of the council, Flavian was condemned and deposed. In the violent scenes which ensued he was so ill-used that three days later he died in his place of exile. Anatolius, a partisan of Dioscurus, was appointed to succeed him.

St. Flavian was repeatedly vindicated by Pope Leo, whose epistle of commendation failed to reach him before his death. The pope also wrote in his favour to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the clergy of Constantinople, besides convening a council at Rome, wherein he designated the Council of Ephesus Ephecinum non judicium sed latrocinium. At the council of Chalcedon (451) the Acts of the Robber Council were annulled and Flavian eulogized as a martyr for the Faith. Pope Hilary had Flavian's death represented pictorially in a Roman church erected by him. On Pulcheria's accession to power, after the death of Theodosius, she brought the remains of her friend to Constantinople where they were received in triumph and interred with those of his predecessors in the see. In the Greek Menology and the Roman Martyrology his feast is entered 18 February, the anniversary of the translation of his body. Relics of St. Flavian are honoured in Italy.

St. Flavian's appeal to Pope Leo against the Robber Council has been published by Amelli in his work "S. Leone Magno e l'Oriente" (Monte Cassino, 1890), also by Lacey (Cambridge, 1903). Two other (Greek and Latin) letters to Leo are preserved in Migne, P.L. (LIV, 723-32, 743-51), and one to Emperor Theodosius also in Migne, P.G. (LXV, 889-92).

F.M. RUDGE

Flavias

A titular see of Cilicia Secunda. Nothing is known of its ancient name and history, except that it is said to be identical with Sis. Lequien (II, 899) gives the names of several of its bishops: Alexander, later Bishop of Jerusalem and founder of the famous library of the Holy Sepulchre in the third century; Nicetas, present at the Council of Nicaea (325); John, who lived in 451; Andrew in the sixth century; George (681); and Eustratus, Patriarch of Antioch about 868. If the identification of Flavias with Sis, which is probable, be admitted, it will be found that it is first mentioned in Theodoret's life of St. Simeon Stylites.

In 704 the Arabs laid siege to the stronghold of Sis. From 1186 till 1375 the city was the capital of the Kings of Lesser Armenia. In 1266 it was captured and burned by the Egyptians. Definitely conquered by the latter in 1375, it passed later into the power of the Ottomans. In the Middle Ages it was the religious centre of Christian Armenians, at least until the catholicos established himself at Etschmiadzin. Sis is still the residence of an Armenian catholicos who has under his jurisdiction several bishops, numerous villages and convents. It is the chief town of the caza of the same name in the vilayet of Adana and numbers 4000 inhabitants, most of whom are Armenians. The great heats compel the inhabitants to desert it during the summer months. It is surrounded by vineyards and groves of cypress and sycamore trees. Ruins of churches, convents, castles and palaces may be seen on all sides.

S. VAILHÉ

Abbey of Flavigny

A Benedictine abbey in the Diocese of Dijon, the department of Côte-d'Or, and arroundissement of Semur. This monastery was founded in 721, the first year of the reign of Thierry IV, by Widerad, who richly endowed it. According to the authors of the "Gallia Christiana" the new abbey, placed under the patronage of St. Prix, Bishop of Clermont, and martyr, was erected on the site of an ancient monastic foundation, dating, it is said, from the time of Clovis, and formerly under the patronage of St. Peter. This titular eventually overshadowed and superseded St. Prix. Pope John VIII dedicated the new church about the year 877, from which time the first patronage, that of St. Peter, appears to have prevailed definitively. The fame of Flavigny was due partly to the relics which it preserved, and partly to the piety of its religious. The monastery was at the height of its reputation in the eighth century, in the time of the Abbot Manasses, whom Charlemagne authorized to found the monastery of Corbigny. The same Manasses transferred from Volvic to Flavigny the relics of St. Prix. There were also preserved here the relics of St. Regina, whom her acts represent as having been beheaded for the faith in the borough of Alise (since called Alise-Sainte-Reine). The history of the translation of St. Regina (21-22 March, 864) was the subject of a contemporary account. Unfortunately the "Chronicle", the "Martyrology", and the "Necrology" of the Abbot Hugues, and the "Livre contenant les choses notables" have either perished or contain few facts of real interest. The liturgical books, notably the "Lectionary", have disappeared. The abbatial list contains few names worthy to be preserved, with the exception of that of Hugues of Flavigny. The monastery was rebuilt in the seventeenth century and occupied by Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maur, who were actively employed in research concerning the historical documents of the abbey, but it disappeared during the French Revolution. Hitherto it had formed a part of the Diocese of Autun; but after the concordat of 1802 the new partition of the diocese placed Flavigny in the Diocese of Dijon. Lacordaire rebuilt and restored all that remained of the monastery surrounded by a portion of its ancient estate, and established there a convent of the order of St. Dominic.

H. LECLERCQ

Flaviopolis

A titular see in the province of Honorias. The city, formerly called Cratia, originally belonged to Bithynia (Ptolemy, V, i, 14), but was later attached to Honorias by Justinian (Novella xxix). Under Constantine the Great it received the name of Flaviopolis. No less than ten of its bishops are known from 343 to 869 (Lequien, I, 575-78). One of them, Paul, was the friend and defender of St. John Chrysostom. The most noted was St. Abraham, bishop in the sixth century, whose life has recently been published (Vailhé, "Saint Abraham de Cratia" in "Echos d'Orient", VIII, 290-94). The diocese was still in existence in the twelfth century. Flaviopolis, now known as Gueredé, is a caza situated in the sanjak of Bolou, and the vilayet of Castamouni. Its 4000 inhabitants, are nearly all Mussulmans; there are only 200 Christians, 40 of whom are Armenian Catholics. A small river, the Oulou Sou, irrigates the very fertile country. Fruit trees (peach, apricot, and cherry) grow there in great abundance.

S. VAILHÉ

Esprit Fléchier

Bishop; b. at Pernes, France, 1632; died at Montpellier, 1710; member of the Academy, and together with Bourdaloue, Bossuet, Fenelon, and Mascaron, one of the greatest sacred orators of his century; his earliest studies were made at Tarascon, under the guidance of his uncle, who was superior of a religious congregation. He himself entered this congregation where he received holy orders, but soon left it and went to Paris in 1660. It was not long before he acquired a reputation as a wit and spiritual writer. A Latin poem in honour of Louis XIV first won for him the favour of the Court. He devoted to literature and history the leisure which remained after the fulfilment of his duties as tutor in the household of Caumartin. Councillor of State, and it was then he wrote his chief historical work "Mémoires sur les grands jours tenus a Clermont en 1665". He was tutor to the Dauphin when his preaching began to make him famous. His funeral eulogies in particular won for him rnore than one comparison with Bossuet. It happened that on a number of occasions he had to treat the same subjects as the Bishop of Meaux, for instance the funeral oration of Maria Theresa, and to arouse almost the same sentiments of admiration.

He was received a member of the French Academy in 1673, on the same day as Racine. Having been consecrated bishop in 1685, he left the See of Lavaur for that of Nîmes in 1687. During his administration he was remarkable for his great charity and his zeal in converting Protestants, but this did not prevent him from devoting himself to letters and to making the Academy of Nîmes, of which he was the director, shine with particular brilliancy. He was less a preacher of the Gospel than a remarkable panegyrist. His sermons are as different from those of Bourdaloue orator than a severe moralist and humble preacher. He delighted ingenious turns of phrase, sonorous words and pretentious periods which have the appearance of seeking applause and which are hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel. His funeral oration for Turenne is in every classical handbook. His oratorical works have been collected under the title of "Oraisons Funèbres" (Paris, 1878), "Sermons", and "Panégyriques". In history he has left an "Histoire du Cardinal Ximénès" (Paris, 1693), the "Vie de Théodose le Grand" and "Lettres choisies sur divers sujet". The last edition of the "Oeuvres" of Fléchier is in two volumes (Paris, 1886).

LOUIS LALANDE

Bertholet Flemael

(The name was also spelled FLEMALLE and FLAMAEL).

Painter, b. at Liège, Flanders, in 1614; d. there in 1675. The son of a glass painter, he was instructed in his art by Trippez and Douffet successively. He visited Rome in 1638 was invited by the Duke of Tuscany to Florence and employed in decorating one of his galleries, thence he passed to Paris where he carried out some elaborate decorative work at Versailles and painted for the sacristy of the church of the Augustinians his picture of the "Adoration of the Magi". He returned to Liège in 1647 and executed many paintings for the churches of his native town. In 1670 he was invited to return to Paris, and painted the ceiling of the audience room in the Tuileries. Louis XIV made him a professor of the Royal Academy of Paris. Towards the close of his life he returned to Liège and was elected a lay canon of the church of St. Paul, and painted several works for the prince-bishop of the city. A few years before he died he fell into a state of profound melancholy and had to be placed under the care of a medical man, in whose house he died. He was a painter of the "grand style", full of inventive genius, but his colouring is pate and weak and his figures somewhat artificial. He is believed to have painted a portrait of Colbert and by some writers is stated to have been a pupil at one time of Jordaens, but this has never been verified.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Patrick Fleming

Franciscan friar b. at Lagan, Couny Louth, Ireland, 17April, 1599; d. 7 November, 1631. His father was great-grandson of Lord Slane; his mother was daughter of Robert Cusack, a baron of the exchequer and a near relative of Lord Delvin. In 1612, at a time when religious persecution raged in Ireland, young Fleming went to Flanders, and became a student, first at Douai, and then at the College of St. Anthony of Padua at Louvain. In 1617 he took the Franciscan habit and a year later made his solemn profession. He then assumed in religion the name of Patrick, Christopher being the name he received at baptism. Five years after his solemn profession he went to Rome with Hugh MacCaghwell, the definitor general of the order, and when he had completed his studies at the College of St. Isidore, was ordained priest. From Rome he was sent by his superiors to Louvain and for some years lectured there on philosophy. During that time he established a reputation for scholarship and administrative capacity, and when the Franciscans of the Strict Observance opened a college at Prague in Bohemia, Fleming was appointed its first superior. He was also lecturer in theology. The Thirty Years War was raging at this time, and in 1631 the Elector of Saxony invaded Bohemia and threatened Prague. Fleming, accompanied by a fellow-countryman named Matthew Hoar, fled from the city. On 7 November the fugitives encountered a party of armed Calvinist peasants; and the latter animated with the fierce fanaticism of the times, fell upon the friars and murdered them. Fleming's body was carried to the monastery of Voticium, four miles distant from the scene of the murder and there buried.

Eminent both in philosophy and theology, he was specially devoted to ecclesiastical history, his tastes in this direction being still further developed by his friendship for his learned countryman Father Hugh Ward. The latter, desirous of writing on early Christian Ireland, asked for Fleming's assistance which was readily given. Even before Fleming left Louvain for Prague he had massed considerable materials and had written a "Life of St. Columba". It was not, however, published in his lifetime. That and other MSS. fell into the hands of Thomas O'Sheerin, lecturer in theology at the College of St. Anthony of Padua who edited and published them at Louvain in 1667. Fleming also wrote a life of Hugh MacCaghwell (q.v.), Primate of Armagh, a chronicle of St. Peter's monastery at Ratisbon (an ancient Irish foundation), and letters to Hugh Ratison on the lives and works of the Irish saints. The letters have been published in "The Irish Ecclesiastical Record" (see below). The work published at Louvain in 1667 is now rare and costly; one copy in recent years was sold for seventy pounds.

E.A. D'ALTON

Richard Fleming

(FLEMMING, FLEMMYNGE).

Bishop of Lincoln and founder of Lincoln College, Oxford; b. of a good Yorkshire family about 1360, Croston being sometimes mentioned, though without clear authority, as his birthplace; d. at Sleaford, 25 Jan., 1431. He studied at University College, Oxford, and became junior proctor in 1407. In 1409 he was chosen by convocation as one of the twelve commissioners appointed to examine the writings of Wyclif, though at this time he was suspected of sympathy with the new movement and is mentioned by name in a mandate which Archbishop Arundel addressed to the chancellor in 1409 in order to suppress this tendency in the university. If the archbishop's description is correct the date usually assigned for Fleming's birth must be far too early, for a man close on fifty could not be mentioned as one of a company of beardless boys who had scarcely put away the playthings of youth (Wilkins, Conc. Magn. Brit., III, 322). If he ever had any sympathy with Wyclif it did not extend to Wyclif's heretical doctrines, for his own orthodoxy was beyond suspicion and it subsequently became his duty as bishop to burn the exhumed body of Wyclif in 1428. He held successively the prebends of South Newbald (22 Aug.,1406) and Langtoft (21 Aug. 1415), both in York Diocese, and subsequently was rector of Boston. He became bachelor in divinity some time before 1413. Finally he was elected Bishop of Lincoln, 20 Nov., 1419, in succession to Philip Repyngdon, and was consecrated at Florence, 28 April, 1420. In 1422 he was in Germany at the head of an embassy, and in June 1423 he acted as president of the English representatives at the Council of Pavia which was transferred to Siena and finally developed into the Council of Basle. More than once he preached before the council, but as he supported the rights of the pope against the assembled Fathers his views were disapproved of. The pope, however, showed him favour by appointing him as his chamberlain and naming him Archbishop of York in 1424. Difficulties, however, arose with the king's ministers, and the appointment was set aside. On returning to Lincoln, the bishop began the foundation of Lincoln College, which he intended to be a collegiolum of theologians connected with the three parish churches of St. Mildred, St. Michael, and Allhallows, Oxford. The preface which he wrote to the statutes is printed in the "Statutes of Lincoln College" (Oxford 1853). He proved a vigorous administrator of his diocese, and added to his cathedral a chantry in which he was subsequently buried. One work now lost, "Super Angliae Etymologia", is attributed to him by Bale.

EDWIN BURTON

Thomas Fleming

Archbishop of Dublin, son of the Baron of Slane, b. in 1593; d. in 1665. He studied at thy Franciscan College of Louvain, became a priest of the Franciscan Order, and after finishing his studies continued at Louvain for a number of years as professor. In October, 1623, he was appointed by Urban VIII to Dublin as successor of Archbishop Matthews. His appointment gave great offense to opponents of the religious orders, and a bitter onslaught was begun against the new archbishop by the priest Paul Harris, in his "Olfactorium" and other brochures. Archbishop Fleming convened and presided at a provincial synod of the province of Dublin in 1640. When the Confederate war broke out (1641-1642) the archbishop, though rather a man of peace, felt constrained to take sides with the Confederates and despatched a procurator to represent him at the synod of the clergy held in Kilkenny (May, 1642). Later on, when the general assembly was convoked at Kilkenny for October, the archbishop resolved to attend personally and take part in the deliberations. As might be expected from his antecedents, and especially from his connection with the Anglo-Irish nobility of the Pale, he was opposed to the "thorough" policy of the Old Irish, and wished for peace at all costs. In 1643 he was one of the prelates who signed the commission empowering representatives of the Confederates to treat with Ormond for a cessation of hostilities. He also opposed Scarampa and Rinuccini, the later of whom was strongly identified with Old-Irish party. In 1649, when all was lost, and the defeated Irish were confronted with Cromwell, a reconciliation was effected with Ormond at a synod of bishops, a step which Archbishop Fleming favoured. But even then King Charles could not recognize his real friends, and the alliance was broken off. The remainder of the archbishop's life was much disturbed by religious persecution carried on by the government of Cromwell. He died in 1655, and the severity of the persecution may be judged from the fact that until 1669 no successor could be appointed. The diocese was administered by vicars until the nomination of Peter Talbot in 1669.

JAMES MACCAFFREY

John Fletcher

A missionary and theologian, b. at Ormskirk, England, of an old Catholic family; educated at Douai and afterwards at St. Gregory's, Paris; d. about 1848. After ordination to the priesthood he became a professor at the College at St-Omer, of which his great-uncle, Rev. William Wilkinson, had been president. When the French Revolution broke out he was taken prisoner with the other collegians and spent many months in captivity at Arras and Dourlens. After they were released in 1795 he returned to England and acted as priest first at Hexham, then at Blackburn, and finally at Weston Underwood (1827), the seat of the Throckmortons. Having acted for a time as chaplain to the dowager Lady Throckmorton he took charge of Leamington Mission (1839-1844). He removed thence to Northampton in 1844 and resigned, owing to his great age, in 1848, after which his name does not appear in the "Catholic Directory", though his death is not therein recorded. Dr. Fletcher's works are: "Sermons on various Religious and Moral Subjects for all the Sundays after Pentecost" (2 vols., 1812, 1821), the introduction is "An Essay on the Spirit of Controversy", also published separately; "The Catholic's Manual", translated from Bossuet with a commentary and notes (1817, 1829); "Thoughts on the Rights and Prerogatives of Church and State, with some observations upon the question of Catholic Securities" (1823); "A Comparative View of the Grounds of the Catholic and Protestant Churches" (1826), "The Catholic's Prayerbook", compiled from a MS. drawn up in 1813 by Rev. Joseph Berington (q.v.); "The Prudent Christian; or Considerations on the Importance and Happiness of Attending to the Care of Our Salvation" (1834); "The Guide to the True Religion" (1836); "Transubstantiation: a Letter to the Lord--" (1836); "On the Use of the Bible"; "The Letters of Fénelon, with Illustrations" (1837); "A Short Historical View of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the Anglican Church" (1843). He translated Blessed Edmund Campion's "Decem Rationes" (1827); de Maistre's "Letters on the Spanish Inquisition" (1838); and Fénelon's "Reflections for Every Day of the Month" (1844). He also brought out an edition of "My Motives for Renouncing the Protestant Religion" by Antonio de Dominis (1828).

EDWIN BURTON

William Flete

An Augustinian hermit friar, a contemporary and great friend of St. Catherine of Siena; the exact place and date of his birth are unknown and those of his death are disputed. He was an English mystic, and lived in the latter half of the fourteenth century; educated at Cambridge, he afterwards joined the Austin Friars in England, but desiring a stricter than they were living, and hearing that there were two monasteries of his order which had returned to primitive discipline near Siena, he set out for Italy. On reaching the forest of Lecceto near Siena, in which one of these monasteries stood, he found the place, which abounded in caves, suited to the contemplative life, that with the consent of his superiors he joined this community. Henceforth he spent his days in study and contemplation in one of these caves, and returned to the monastery at night to sleep. He was called the "Bachelor of the Wood"; here he became acquainted with St. Catherine, who occasionally visited him at Lecceto and went to confession to him. He had so great a love for solitude, that he declined to leave it when invited by Pope Urban VI to go to Rome, to assist him with his counsel at the time of the papal schisms then disturbing the Church.

He wrote a long panegyric on St. Catherine at her death, which, with another of his works, is preserved in the public library at Siena. For at least nineteen years he led a most holy and austere life in this wood, and is said by Torellus to have returned to England, immediately after St. Catherine's death in 1383, and, after introducing the reform of Lecceto, to have died the same year. Others say he died in 1383, but there is no mention of his death in the book of the dead at Lecceto, and the exact date of it is uncertain. He was considered a saint by his contemporaries.

None of his works have been printed: they consist of six manuscripts; (1) an epistle to the provincial of his order; (2) a letter to the doctors of the province; (3) an epistle to the brethren in general; (4) predictions to the English of calamities coming upon England (in this he prophesied that England would lose the Catholic faith); (5) divers epistles; (6) a treatise on remedies against temptations. A fifteenth century manuscript of this last is now in the University Library at Cambridge, to which it was presented by George I.

FRANCESCA M. STEELE

Zénaide-Marie-Anne Fleuriot

A French novelist, b. at Saint-Brieuc, 12 September, 1829; d. at Paris, 18 December, 1890. She published her first novel, "Les souvenirs d' une douairière", in 1859, and its success led her to adopt the literary profession. Either under her real name or the pseudonym of "Anna Edianez de Saint-B", she published a large number of novels, most of which were intended for women and girls. She was a constant contributor to "Le Journal de la jeunesse" and "La Bibliothèque rose", whose aim is to provide young people with unobjectionable reading. Her novels are written in a simple, easy style which leaves the reader's whole attention free to occupy itself with the interest of the story; they are Catholic in the true sense of the word, for they not only contain no unorthodox opinion, but present none of those evil suggestions with which many writers have won popularity and lucre. The following deserve to be specially mentioned: "La vie en Famille" (Paris, 1862); "La clef d'or" (Paris, 1870); "Le théâtre chez soi" (Paris, 1873); "Monsieur Nostradamus" (Paris, 1875); "Sans beauté" (Paris, 1889).

PIERRE MARIQUE

Abbey of Fleury

(More completely FLEURY-SAINT-BENOÎT)

One of the oldest and most celebrated Benedictine abbeys of Western Europe. Its modern name is Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire, applicable both to the monastery and the township with which the abbey has always been associated. Situated, as its name implies, on the banks of the Loire, the little town is of easy access from Orléans. Its railway station, St-Benoît--St-Aignan (Loiret) is a little over a mile from the old Floriacum. Long before reaching the station, the traveller is struck by the imposing mass of a monastic church looming up solitary in the plain of the Loire. The church of Floriacum has survived the stately habitation of abbot and monks. The list of the abbots of Fleury contains eighty-nine names, a noble record for one single abbey. From Merovingian names like St. Mommolus, and Carlovingian names like St. Abbo, we come upon names that arouse different feelings, like Odet de Coligny (Cardinal de Chatillon), Armand du Plessis (Cardinal de Richelieu). The last twenty-two abbots held the abbey in commendam. The list closes with Georges-Louis Phélypeaux, Archbishop of Bourges, in 1789. Tradition, accepted by Mabillon, attributes the foundation of Fleury to Leodebaldus, Abbot of St-Aignan (Orléans) about 640. Before the days of the monks there was a Gallo-Roman villa called Floriacum, in the Vallis aurea. This was the spot selected by the Abbot of St-Aignan for his foundation, and from the very St. Fleury seems to have known the Benedictine rule. Rigomarus was its first abbot.

Church building must have made busy men of many abbots of Fleury. From the very start the abbey boasted of two churches, one in honour of St. Peter and the other in honour of the Blessed Virgin. This latter became the great basilica that started the erection of a gigantic feudal tower, intending it to be one day the west front of the abbey church. His bold plan became a reality, and in 1218 the edifice was completed. It is a fine specimen of the romanesque style, and the tower of Abbot Gauzlin, resting on fifty columns, forms a unique porch. The church is about three hundred feet long and one hundred and forty feet wide at the transepts. The crypt alone would repay an artist's journey. The choir of the church contains the tomb of a French monarch, Philip I, buried there in 1108. But the boast of Fleury is the relics of St. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism. Mommolus, the second Abbot of Fleury, is said to have effected their transfer from Monte Cassino when that abbey fell into decay after the ravages of the Lombards. Nothing is more certain than the belief of western Europe in the presence of these precious relics at Fleury. To them more than to its flourishing schools Fleury owed wealth and fame, and today French piety surrounds them with no less honour than when kings came thither to pray. The monks of Monte Cassino impugn the claims of Fleury, but without ever showing any relics to make good their contention that they possess the body of the founder. No doubt there is much fabulous matter in the Fleury accounts of the famous transfer, but we must remember they were written at the when even good causes were more effectively defended by introducing the supernatural than by the most obvious natural explanations.

ANSCAR VONIER

André-Hercule de Fleury

Born at Lodève, 26 June, 1653; died at Paris, 29 January, 1742. He was a protégé of Cardinal de Bonzi and become chaplain to Maria Theresa in 16790, and to Louis XIV in 1683. He was appointed bishop of Fréjus in 1698, but resigned the see in 1715, when he received the Abbey of Tournus and was appointed tutor to the young Louis XV. Naturally cold and imperturbable, he remained in the background during the regency. When Louis XV attained his majority in 1723, it was at the instance of Fleury that the Duc de Bourbon was made prime minister, and quarrelling with the Duke, Fleury pretended to retire to Issy. Louis XV, however, who admired and loved his tutor, sent the Duke into exile, and entrusted the government to Fleury. True to his habits of discretion, and accustomed, as Duclos says, "to bridle the envious", he never assumed the title of prime minister. He was made cardinal in September, 1726, and until his death remained the guiding spirit in French politics.

Comparing the three cardinals, d'Argenson said: "Richelieu bled France, Mazarin purged it, and Fleury put it on a diet". He alluded in this bantering way to the cardinal's policy of economy which, among other drawbacks, retarded the development of the French military marine at the very period when the mercantile marine, thanks to private enterprise, was making considerable progress. In spite of this, Fluery had the qualities of a great minister. He was the first to foresee that France would not always be at enmity with the Hapsburghs. In connection with the Polish succession and the Duchy of Lorraine, he availed himself of the best advice of the diplomat Chauvelin, when it became necessary to play a cautious game with Austria. But, as Vandal says, the policy of Chauvelin was that of the past. Fleury, in redoubling his efforts to bring about as quickly as possible pleasant relations between the King of France and the emperor, was the precursor of Choisuel, Vergennes, and Talleyrand. He was accused of timidity when, at the outbreak of the War of Austrian Succession he wrote a letter to general Königseck, in which he seemed to apologize for this war. But, in truth, Fleury was simply anticipating the policy of the renversement des alliances (breaking up of the alliances), which began in 1756, and which by uniting France and Austria was to be more in conformity with the Catholic traditions of both countries. The opinions of historians like Vandal and Masson with regard to this renversement des alliances, so long the object of criticism, tends to justify Cardinal Fleury.

During the period of Fleury's power, Jansenism was gaining ground among the masses as a superstitious sect, as is evidenced by the miracles of the deacon Pâris, while among the upper classes it took shape as a political faction. Fleury was the minister who had to contend with a Jansenist opposition in the Parliament of Paris. He reserved to royal authority all matters relating to Jansenists, one consequence of which was a "strike" on the part of the magistrates and lawyers, which Fleury suppressed with certain measures of severity. He became a member of the Academy in 1717 and was the first to propose sending a scientific expedition to the far north and to Peru to measure the degrees of the meridian.

Marais, Mémoires (Paris, 1857); D'Argenson, Journal (Paris, 1859-67); Duclos, Mémoires secrets (Paris, 1791); Lacretelle, Histoire de France pendant le 18e siècle (Partis, 1830); Jobez, La France sous Louis XV (Paris, 1861-73); Duc de Broglie, Le Cardinal de Fleury et la Pragmatqiue impêriale in Revue historique (1882).

GEORGES GOYAU

Flodoard

(Or FRODOARD)

French historian and chronicler, b. at Epernay in 894; d. in 966. He was educated at Reims, where he became canon of the cathedral and keeper of the episcopal archives. He visited Rome during the pontificate of Leo VII (936-939) and was shown much favour by the pope. In gratitude he wrote a long poem in Latin hexameters, celebrating the deeds of Christ and of the first saints in Palestine and Antioch, adding a versified narration of the history of the popes. The whole work, which is legendary rather than historical, was dedicated to Archbishop Rotbert of Trier. When his patron and protector, Archbishop Artold of Reims, was deposed through the intrigues of the powerful Héribert, Count of Vermandois, Flodoard remained loyal to him, and after Artold's re-establishment became his trusted counsellor. In 952 he retired to a monastery, probably that of St. Basol, and became abbot. This dignity he laid down when seventy years of age.

At the instance of Archbishop Rotbert Flodoard undertook to write a history of the Church of Reims, "Historia Remensis ecclesiae", for which he used the episcopal archives as well as the writings of Bishop Hinemar. This work is of the greatest value on account of the completeness of the material as well as the truthfulness of the narration. Flodoard's other great work is the "Annales", which covers the period from 919 to 966. With the most painstaking exactness he narrates in plain, simple language all the events that happened during these years, and thus the work is of the utmost importance for a knowledge of the history of France, Lorraine, and the East Franconian realm. With this chronicle he was occupied almost to the day of his death. An addition was made subsequently to cover the period from 976-978. The "Historia Remensis ecclesiae" was first edited by Sirmond (Paris, 1611); the best edition is that of Heller and Waitz in the "Monumenta Germaniae historica: Scriptores", XIII, 405-599 (Hanover, 1881). The "Annales" were edited by Pertz in the same work, III, 363-408 (Hanover, 1839). The poem was published in Mabillon's "Acta Sanctorum", vol. III (Paris, 1668-1701). Flodoard's complete works were published with a French translation by the Academy of Reims (Reims, 1854-55, 3 vols.) and in Migne's Latin Patrology, CXXXV, 1-866.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Abbey of Floreffe

Pleasantly situated on the right bank of the Sambre, about seven miles southwest of Namur, Belgium, owes its foundation to Godfrey, Count of Namur, and his wife Ermensendis. When St. Norbert, in the year after the foundation his order, returned from Cologne with a rich treasure of relics for his new church at Premontre, Godfrey and Ermensendis went to meet him and received him in their castle at Namur. So edified were they with what they had seen and heard, that they besought the saint to found a house at Floreffe. The charter by which they made over a church and house to Norbert and his order bears the date of 27 Novemher, 1121 that Floreffe is chronologically speaking, the second abbey of the order. Norbert laid the foundations of the church which was called Salve, and the abbey received the sweet name of Flos Mariae, the Flower of Mary. The chronicles of Floreffe record the following event: While celebrating Mass at Floreffe, the saint saw a drop of Blood issuing from the Sacred Host to the paten. Distrusting his own eyes, he said to the deacon who assisted him: "Brother, do you see what I see?" "Yes, Father" answered the deacon, "I see a drop of Blood which gives out a brilliant light". The altar stone on which St. Norbert celebrated Mass is still preserved at Floreffe. St. Norbert placed Richard, one of his first disciples, at the head of the young community. The second abbot, Almaric, was commissioned by Pope Innocent II to preach the Gospel in Palestine. Accompanied by a band of chosen religious of Floreffe, he journeyed to Holy Land and founded the abbey of St. Habacuc (1137). Philip Count of Namur, gave to Weric, the sixth abbot, a large piece of the Holy Cross which he had received from his brother Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople. The chronicles record that twice, namely in 1204 and 1254, Blood flowed from this relic on the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, the miracle being witnessed by the religious and by a large concourse of people. At the suppression of the Abbey of Floreffe, the relic was removed to a place of safety. When a few years ago, the Norbertine canons, who had been expelled from France, bought an old Augustinian Monastery at Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, this precious relic was restored to them, so that it is again in the custody of the sons of St. Norbert. All the abbeys and convents founded by the Abbey of Floreffe have ceased to exist with the exception of Postel and Leffe. Louis de Fromantau, elected in 1791, was the fifty-fifth and last abbot of Floreffe. When the French Republican army over-ran Belgium the religious were expelled, and the abbey with all its possessions was confiscated. Put up for sale in 1797, it was bought back for the abbot and his community. After the Concordat the abbot and a few of his religious returned to the abbey, but so great were the difficulties that after the death of the last religious the abbey became the property of the Bishop of Namur and is now the seat of a flourishing seminary.

F.M. GEUDENS

Florence

(Lat. Florentia; It. Firenze). ARCHDIOCESE OF FLORENCE (FLORENTINA).

Located in the province of Tuscany (Central Italy). The city is situated on the Arno in a fertile plain at the foot of the Fiesole hills, whence came its first inhabitants (about 200 B.C.). In 82 B.C. Sulla destroyed it because it supported the democratic party at Rome. In 59 B.C. it was rebuilt by Cæsar at a short distance from its original site. It served then as a military post and commanded the ford of the Arno. Soon afterwards it became a flourishing municipium.

EARLY MEDIEVAL HISTORY

Besieged and probably captured by Totila (541), it was retaken (552) by the Byzantine general Narses. The most famous of its few antiquities dating from Roman times is the amphitheatre known as the Parlagio. In ancient times it was a town of small importance; its prosperity did not begin until the eleventh century. During the Lombard period Florence belonged to the Duchy of Chiusi; after the absorption of the Lombard kingdom by Charlemagne, who spent at Florence the Christmas of 786, it was the residence of a count whose overlord was margrave of Tuscany. In the two centuries of conflict between the popes and the emperors over the feudal legacy of Countess Matilda (d. 1115) the city played a prominent part; it was precisely to this conflict that the republic owed its wonderful development. During this period Florence stood always for the papacy, knowing well that it was thus ensuring its own liberty. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the Florentines fought successfully against Fiesole, which was destroyed in 1125, and against several neighbouring feudal lords who had harassed the trade of the town, the Alberti, Guido Guerra, the Buondelmonti (whose castle of Montebuoni was destroyed in 1135), the Uberti, the Cadolinghi, the Ubaldini, and others. These nobles were all obliged to take up their residence in the town, and spend there at least three months of every year. In 1113 the Florentines, never partial to the German Emperors, rose against the imperial vicar in Florence.

The first public meeting of the townsfolk which paved the way for the establishment of the "Commune" was convened by Bishop Ranieri in 1105. About the same time they helped the Pisans in the conquest of the Balearic Isles (1114) asking no other reward than two porphyry columns for the great central doorway of the Baptistery (San Giovanni). By 1155 they had grown so powerful that they dared to close their gates against Frederick Barbarossa. The nobles (magnates, grandi), forced to become citizens, were not slow in creating disturbances in the town by their rival factions, and in hindering the work of the consuls who chanced to be displeasing to them. In this way there was endless friction an strife, and thus was laid the foundation of the two great parties that for centuries divided the city, Guelphs and Ghibellines. The former was democratic, republican, favourable to the papacy; the latter was the party of the old Florentine aristocracy and the emperor. In 1197 the Tuscan League (in imitation of the successful Lombard League) was formed at San Ginesio between the cities of Florence, Lucca, Siena, Prato, San Miniato, and the Bishop of Volterra, in presence of papal legates. These cities bound them selves on that occasion not to acknowledge the author ity of emperor, king, duke, or marquis without the ex press order of the Roman Church. At that time, in the interest of better administration, Florence abolished its old-time government by two consuls, and substituted a podestà, or chief magistrate (1193), with a council of twelve consuls. In 1207 a law was passed which made it obligatory for the podestà to be an outsider. The legislative power originally resided in the Statuto, a commission nominated by the consuls. After the introduction of a podestà it was exercised by the priors of the chief guilds (the artes majores), seven in number (carpenters, wool-weavers, skinners, tanners, tailors, shoemakers, and farriers), to which were afterwards added the fourteen lesser guilds (the judges, the notaries-public, doctors, money-changers, and others). To hold any public office it was necessary to belong to one or other of these guilds (arti); the nobles were therefore wont to enter their names on the books of the wool-weavers' guild. The management of all political affairs rested with the Signoria, and there was a kind of public parliament which met four times a year. Public business was attended to by the podestà, assisted in their turns by two of the consuls.

GUELPHS AND GHIBELLINES

A broken engagement between one of the Buondelmonti and a daughter of the house of Amidei, and the killing of the young man, were the causes of a fierce civil strife in 1215 an long after. Some sided with the Buondelmonti and the Donati, who were Guelphs; others sympathized with the Amidei and the Uberti, who were Ghibellines. Up to 1249 the two factions fought on sight; in that year Emperor Frederick II, who wished to have Florence on his side in his struggle with the papacy, sent the Uberti reinforcements of German mercenaries with whose aid they drove out the Buondelmonti and so many of their followers that the Guelph party was completely routed. The Ghibellines straightway established an aristocratic government but retained the podestà. The people were deprived of their rights, but they assembled on 20 October, 1250, in the church of Santa Croce and deposed the podestà and his Ghibelline administration. The government was then entrusted to two men, one a podestà, the other a Capitano del Popolo (captain of the people), both of them outsiders; besides these the six precincts of the town nominated each two anziani, or elders. For military purposes the town was divided into twenty gonfaloni or banner-wards, the country around about into sixty-six, the whole force being under the command of the gonfaloniere. The advantage of the new arrangement was quickly shown in the wars against neighbouring towns once their allies, but which had fallen under Ghibelline control. In 1253 Pistoia was taken, and was forced to recall the exiled Guelphs. The year 1254 has been called the year of victories. Siena, Volterra, and Pisa were then constrained to accept peace on severe terms, and to expel the Ghibellines. In 1255 it was the turn of Arezzo; Pisa was once more defeated at Ponte Serchio, and forced to cede to Florence the Castello di Mutrone, overlooking the sea. Hence forward war was continuous between Pisa and Florence until the once powerful Pisa passed completely into the power of the Florentines. In 1260, however, Farinata degli Uberti, leader of the outlawed Ghibellines, with the help of Siena and of the German bands in King Manfred's pay, but mostly by deceiving the Florentines into believing that he would betray Siena into their hands, defeated (4 Sept.) the Florentine army of 30,000 foot and 3,000 horse in the battle of Montaperti. The Guelphs thereupon chose exile for themselves and their families. The people's government was again overturned; the citizens had to swear allegiance to King Manfred, and German troops were called on to support the new order of things. The podestà, Guido Novello, was appointed by Manfred. After the latter's death the Guelphs again took courage, and Guido Novello was forced to make concessions. Finally, in 1266, the people rose, and barricaded the streets with locked chains; Guido lost courage and on 4 November, accompanied by his cavalry, fled from the city. The popular government of the guild-masters or priors (Capi delle arti) was restored; Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis of France and King of Naples, was called in as peacemaker (paciere) in 1267, and was appointed podestà. Florence took again the lead in the Tuscan League, soon began hostilities against the few remaining Ghibelline towns, and with the help of Pope Nicholas III succeeded in ridding itself of the embarrassing protection of King Charles (1278). Nicholas also attempted to reconcile the two factions, and with some success. Peace was concluded (Cardinal Latini's peace) in 1280 and the exiles returned.

The government was then carried on by the podestà and the capitano del popolo, aided by fourteen buoni uomini, i.e. reputable citizens (eight Guelphs and six Ghibellines), afterwards replaced by three (later six) guild-masters, elected for two months, during which time they lived together in the palace of the Signoria. Nor could they be reelected till after two years. There were, moreover, two councils, in which also the guild-masters took part. As a result of the assistance Florence gave Genoa in the war against Pisa (1284 and 1285) its territory was greatly extended. The victory at Campaldino (1289) over Ghibelline Arezzo established firmly the hegemony of Florence in Tuscany. In 1293 Pisa was obliged to grant Florence the right to trade within its walls. Fresh troubles, however, were in store for Florence. In 1293 the burgesses, exulting in their success, and acting under the influence of Giano della Bella, excluded the nobles from election to the office of guild-master. On the other hand, even the lesser guilds were allowed to retain a share in the government. To crown the insult a new magistrate, styled gonfaloniere di giustizia, was appointed to repress all abuses on the part of the nobles. The latter chose as their leader and defender Corso Donati; the burgesses gathered about the Cerchi family, whose members had grown rich in trade. The common people or artisan class sided with the Donati. In 1295 Giano della Bella was found guilty of violating his own ordinances, and was forced to leave Florence. The opposing factions united now with similar factions in Pistoia; that of the Cerchi with the Bianchi or Whites, that of the Donati with the Neri or Blacks. To restore peace the guild-masters in 1300 exiled the leaders of both factions; among them went Dante Alighieri. The leaders of the Bianchi were, however, soon recalled. Thereupon the Neri appealed to Boniface VIII, who persuaded Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair of France, to visit Florence as peace maker. He at once recalled the Donati, or Neri, and set aside the remonstrances of the Bianchi, who were once more expelled, Dante among them. The exiles negotiated successively with Pisa, Bologna, and the chiefs of the Ghibelline party for assistance against the Neri; for a while they seemed to infuse new life into the Ghibelline cause. Before long, however, both par ties split up into petty factions. In 1304 Benedict XI essayed in vain to restore peace by causing the recall of the exiles. The city then became the wretched scene of incendiary attempts, murders, and robberies. In 1306 the Ghibellines were once more driven out, thanks to Corso Donati (Il Barone), who aimed at tyrannical power and was soon hated by rich and poor alike, Aided by his father-in-law, Uguccione della Faggiuola, leader of the Ghibellines in Romagna, he attempted to overthrow the Signoria, accusing it of corruption and venality. The people assembled and the guild-masters condemned him as a traitor; he shut himself up in his fortress-like house, but soon after wards fell from his horse and was killed (13 Sept., 1308).

In 1310 Emperor Henry VII invaded Italy, and obliged successively the cities of Lombardy to recognize his imperial authority. The Florentine exiles (particularly Dante in his Latin work "De Monarchiâ"), also the Pisans, ardently denounced Florence to the emperor as the hotbed of rebellion in Italy. Great was, therefore, the terror in Florence. AU the exiles, save Dante, were recalled; but in order to have an ally against the emperor, whose overlordship they refused to acknowledge, they did homage to Robert, King of Naples. On his way to Rome (1312) Henry found the gates of Florence closed against him. He besieged it in vain, while Florentine money fanned the flames of further revolt in all the cities of Lombardy. On his return journey in October he was again obliged to abandon his siege of Florence. At Pisa he laid Florence under the ban of the empire, deprived it of all rights and privileges, and permitted the counterfeiting of its coinage, the famous "florins of San Giovanni", Pisa and Genoa were now eager for revenge on their commercial rival, when suddenly Henry died. The Pisans then elected as podestà the aforesaid exiled Florentine, Uguccione della Faggiuola, who be came master of several other towns of which Lucca was the most important (1314). In 1315 he defeated the Florentines near Montecatini, and already beheld Florence in his power and himself master of Tuscany. Unfortunately, at this juncture Lucca, under Castruccio Castracane, rebelled against him and drove him out, nor was he ever able to return. Castruccio, himself a Ghibelline, was a menace to the liberty of the Tuscan League, always Guelph in character. After a guerrilla warfare of three years, the army of the League under Raimondo Cardona was defeated at Altopascio (1325), though the Florentines succeeded in making good their retreat. To ensure the safety of the city, Florence offered Charles, Duke of Calabria, son of King Robert of Naples, the Signoria for ten years. He came, and greatly curtailed the privileges of the citizens. Happily for Florence he died in 1329, There upon, Florence, having regained its freedom, remod elled its government, and created five magistracies: (1) guild-masters (priori) or supreme administrative power; (2) the Gonfalonieri charged with the military operations; (3) the capitani di parte (Guelphs, common people); (4) a board of trade (Guidici di commercio); (5) consuls for the guilds (Consoli delle arli). Moreover, two councils or assemblies were established, one composed of three hundred Guelphs and the humbler citizens, the other of various groups of rich and poor under the presidency of the podestà. These councils were renewed every four months.

LATER MEDIEVAL HISTORY

It has always been a cause for wonder that aamid so many political, economical, and military vicissitudes the prosperity of Florence never ceased to grow. Majestic churches arose amid the din of arms, and splendid palaces were built on all sides, though their owners must have been at all times uncertain of peaceful possession. At the date we have now reached forty-six towns and walled castelli, among them Fiesole and Empoli, acknowledged the authority of Florence, and every year its mint turned out between 350,000 and 400,000 gold forms. Its coinage was the choicest and most reliable in Europe. The receipts of its exchequer were greater than those of the Kings of Sicily and Aragon. Merchants from Florence thronged the markets of the known world, and established banks wherever they went. In the city itself there were 110 churches, It openly aimed at sovereignty over all Tuscany. Arms and money won for it Pistoia (1329) and Arezzo (1336). It aided Venice (1338) against Mastino della Scala, a peril to Florence since he became master of Lucca. Knowing well the commercial greed of the Florentines, Mastino, to free himself from their opposition, offered to sell them Lucca. But the Pisans could not allow their ancient enemy to come so near; they took up arms, captured Lucca, and defeated the Florentines at La Ghiaia (1341). Seeing now that their militia needed a skilful leader, the Florentines offered the command and a limited dictatorship, first to Jacopo Gabrielli d'Agabio, and when he proved unfit, to a French freebooter, Gauthier de Brienne (1342), who styled himself Duke of Athens on the strength of his descent from the dukes of Achaia. He played his part so skilfully that he was proclaimed Signore for life. In this way Florence imitated most other Italian cities, which in their weariness of popular government had by this time chosen princes to rule over them. Gauthier de Brienne, however, became despotic, favoured the nobility and the populace (always allies in Florence), and harassed the rich middle-class families (Altoviti, Medici, Rucellai, Ricci). The populace soon tired of him, and joined by the peasants (genti del contado), they raised the cry of "liberty" on 26 July, 1343. Gauthier's soldiers were slain, and he was forced to leave the city. But the newly recovered liberty of Florence was dearly bought. Its subject towns (Arezzo, Colle di Val d'Elsa, and San Geminiano) declared themselves independent; Pistoia joined with Pisa; Ottaviano de' Belforti was lord of Volterra. There was now an interval of peace, during which the greater guilds (known as the popolo grasso) strove gradually to restrict the rights of the lesser guilds, which in the end found themselves shut out from all public offices. Aided by the populace they threat ened rebellion, and secured thus the abolition of the more onerous laws.

It was now the turn of the humblest classes, hitherto without political rights. Clearly they had reaped no advantage from their support of the small bourgeoisie, and so they resolved to resort to arms in their own behalf. Thus came about the revolution of the Ciompi (1378), so called from the wool carders (ciompi), who under Michele di Lando seized the palace of the Signoria, and proclaimed their leader gonfaloniere di gonfalon. They instituted three new guilds in which all artisans were to be in scribed, and which had equal civil rights with the other guilds. Michele, fearing that the popular tumult would end in a restoration of the Signoria, went over to the burgesses; after a sanguinary conflict the Ciompi were put to flight. The rich burgesses were now more firmly established than before, which did not remove the discontent of the lesser guilds and the populace. This deep discontent was the source of the brilliant fortune of Giovanni de' Medici, son of Bicci, the richest of the Florentine bankers.

Apropos of this world-famous name it may be said here that the scope of this article permits only a brief reference to the great influence of medieval Florence as an industrial, commercial, and financial centre. In the woollen industry it was easily foremost, particularly in the dyeing and final preparation of the manufactured goods. Its banking houses were famous through all Europe, and had for clients not only a multitude of private individuals, but also kings and popes. As financial agents of the latter, the mercatores papae, the Florentines were to be found in all the chief national centres, and exercised no little influence. (See H. de B. Gibbins, "History of Commerce in Europe", London, 1892; Peruzzi, "Storia del corn mercio e dei banchieri di Firenze in tutto il mondo da 1200 fino a 1345", Florence, 1868; Toniolo, "Dei rimoti fattori della potenza economica di Firenze nel medioevo", Milan, 1882; G. Buonazia, "L'arte della lana" in "Nuova Antologia", 1870, XIII, 327-425.)

To take up the thread of our narrative, several events of interest had meanwhile occurred. In 1355 Emperor Charles III appeared before Florence. The city had become more cautious as it grew in wealth and did not, therefore, venture to resist him; it seemed wiser to purchase, with gold and a nominal submission, entailing as few obligations as possible, present security and actual independence. The citizens swore allegiance on the understanding that the emperor would ratify the laws made or to be made in Florence; that the members of the Signoria (elected by the citizens) should be, ipso facto, vicars imperial; that neither the emperor himself nor any envoy of his should enter the town; that he should be content with the payment of 100,000 forms, in lieu of all past claims (regalia), and a promise of 4000 forms annually during his life. The Florentines could hardly as more complete autonomy. The populace, it is true, opposed even this nominal submission, but it was explained to them that their liberties were untouched. In 1360 Volterra returned again to Florence, and war with Pisa followed. Pisa sought the help of Bernabò Visconti; after a prolonged conflict the Florentines won the decisive battle of San Savino (1364), and peace was declared. In 1375 the inquisitor, Fra Pietro d'Aquila, having exceeded his powers, the Signoria restricted his authority and conferred on the ordinary civil courts jurisdiction in all criminal cases of ecclesiastics. This displeased the pope; and in consequence Guillaume de Noellet, papal legate at Bologna, directed against Tuscany the band of mercenaries known as the "White Company" (Compagnia Bianca). Florence had hitherto been undeviatingly faithful to the Holy See; it now began to rouse against the pope, not only the cities of Romagna and the Marches, but even Rome itself. Eighty cities joined in the movement. Gregory XI thereupon placed Florence under interdict (1376), and allowed anyone to lay hands on the goods and persons of the Florentines. Nor was this a mere threat; the Florentine merchants in England were obliged to return to Florence, leaving their property behind them. Not even the intercession of St. Catharine of Siena, who went to Avignon for the purpose, could win pardon for the city. It was only in 1378, after the Western Schism had begun, that Urban VI absolved the Florentines. Even then the people compelled the offending magistrates to give ample satisfaction to the pope (Gherardi, La guerra de' Fiorentini con papa Gregorio XI, detta guerra degli otto santi, Florence, 1869). Florence now beheld with no little concern the political progress of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Lord of Milan. By the acquisition of Pisa he had gained a coveted foothold in Tuscany. The Florentines sided with his numerous enemies, all of whom were anxious to prevent the formation of an Italian sole monarchy. Visconti was victorious, but he died in 1402, whereupon Florence at once laid siege to Pisa. In 1405 Giovanni Maria Visconti sold the town to the Florentines for 200,000 forms; but the Pisans continued to defend their city, and it was not till 1406 that Gino Capponi captured it. A revolt that broke out soon after the surrender was repressed with great severity. The purchase (1421) of the port of Leghorn from Genoa for 100,000 gold florins gave Florence at last a free passage to the sea, nor did the citizens long delay to compete with Venice and Genoa for the trade of the African and Levantine coasts (1421). In 1415 the new constitutions of the republic were promulgated. They were drawn up by the famous jurists Paolo di Castro and Bartolommeo Volpi of the University of Florence.

THE MEDICI

Naturally enough, these numerous wars were very costly. Consequently early in the fifteenth century the taxes increased greatly and with them the popular discontent, despite the strongly democratic character of the city government. Certain families now began to assume a certain prominence. Maso degli Albizzi was captain of the people for thirty years; after his death other families sought the leadership. Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, to bring about a more equal distribution of taxation, propose the catasto, i. e. an income-tax. This made him very popular and he was proclaimed Gonfaloniere for life (1421), His son Cosimo (d. 1464) inherited his immense riches and popularity, but his generosity brought him under suspicion. The chief men of the greater guilds, and especially the Albizzi family, charged him with a desire to overthrow the government and he was exiled to Padua (1433). In 1434 the new Signoria, favourable to Cosimo, recalled him and gave him the proud title of Pater Patriae, i. e. father of his country. In 1440 the Albizzi were outlawed, and Cosimo found his path clear. He scrupulously retained the old form of government, and refrained from all arbitrary measures. He was open-handed, built palaces and villas, also churches (San Marco, San Lorenzo); his costly and rare library was open to all; he patronized scholars and encouraged the arts. With him began the golden age of the Medici. The republic now annexed the district of Casentino, taken from the Visconti at the Peace of Gavriana (1441), Cosimo's son Piero was by no means equal to his father; nevertheless the happy ending of the war against Venice, the former ally of Florence, shed glory on the Medici name. Piero died in 1469, whereupon his sons Lorenzo and Giuliano were created "princes of the State" (principi dello Stato). In 1478 occurred the conspiracy of the Pazzi, to whose ambitious plans Lorenzo was an obstacle. A plot was formed to kill the two Medici brothers in the cathedral on Easter Sunday; Giuliano fell, but Lorenzo escaped. The authors of the plot, among them Francesco Salviati, Archbishop of Pisa, perished at the hands of the angry populace. Sixtus IV, whose nephew Girolamo Riario was also an accomplice, laid the town under an interdict because of the murder of Salviati and the Pazzi, and supported by the King of Naples threatened to go to war, Hostilities had actually begun, when Lorenzo set out for Naples and by his diplomatic tact induced King Alfonso to make peace (1480); this obliged the pope also to come to terms. Meanwhile, despite his almost unlimited influence, Lorenzo refused to be anything else than the foremost citizen of Florence. With the exception of Siena, all Tuscany now acknowledged the rule of Florence and offered the spectacle of an extensive principality governed by a republic of free and equal citizens. Lorenzo died in 1492. (See the life of Lorenzo by Roscoe, Liverpool, 1795, and often re printed; also the German life by A. von Reumont, Leipzig, 1874, and Eng. tr. by R. Harrison, London, 1876.)

Lorenzo was succeeded by his son, Piero, but he did not long retain popularity, especially after he had ceded the fortresses of Pietra Santa and Pontremoli to Charles VIII of France, who entered Italy with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Aragonese do minion in Naples. The popular displeasure reached its acme when Piero pawned the towns of Pisa and Leghorn to the French king. He was driven out and the former republican government restored, Charles VIII entered Florence and endeavoured to have Piero's promises honoured; but the firmness of Piero Capponi and a threatened uprising of the people forced the French king to quit Tuscany (1494). There were at that time three parties in Florence: the Medicean party, known as the Palleschi (from the palle or little balls in the Medici coat of arms), the oligarchic republicans, called the Arrabiati (enraged), and the democrats or Piagnoni (weepers). The last had for chief the Dominican friar, Girolamo Savonarola of Ferrara, who hoped by their aid to restore in Florence piety and a Christian discipline of life, i.e. to establish in the city the Kingdom of Christ. In fact, Christ was publicly proclaimed Lord or Signore of Florence (Rex populi Florentini). (For the irreligious and rationalistic elements in the city at this period see GUICCIARDINI and MACHIAVELLI). Savonarola's intemperate speeches were the occasion of his excommunication, and in 1498 he was publicly burned. The Arrabiati were then in power. In 1512 Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici purchased at a great price the support of the Spanish captain Cardona and sent him to Florence to demand the return of the Medici. Fearing worse evils the people consented, and Lorenzo II, son of Piero, was recalled as prince. Cardinal Giovanni, however, kept the reins of power in his own hands. As Leo X he sent thither Cardinal Giulio de' Medici (the natural son of Giuliano), afterwards Clement VII. The family had now reached the acme of its power and prestige. The sack of Rome (1527) and the misfortunes of Clement VII caused a third exile of the Medici. Ippolito and Alessandro, cousins of the pope, were driven out.

In the peace concluded between Emperor Charles V and Clement VII it was agreed that the Medici rule should be restored in Florence. The citizens, how ever, would not listen to this, and prepared for resistance. Their army was defeated at Gavinana (1530) through the treachery of their general, Malatesta Baglioni. A treaty was then made with the emperor Florence paid a heavy war-indemnity and recalled the exiles, and the pope granted a free amnesty. On 5 July, 1531, Alessandro de' Medici returned and took the title of Duke, promising allegiance to the emperor. Clement VII dictated a new constitution, in which among other things the distinction between the greater and the lesser guilds was removed. Alessandro was a man of dissolute habits, and was stabbed to death by a distant relative, Lorenzino (1538), no better, but more clever, than Alessandro. The murderer fled at once from Florence. The party of Alessandro now offered the ducal office to Cosimo de' Medici, son of Giovanni delle Bande Nere. He avenged the death of Alessandro and finally transformed the government into an absolute principality. This he did by gradualiy equalizing the political status of the inhabitants of Florence and of the subject cities and districts. This is the last stage in the political history of Florence as a distinct state; henceforth the political history of the city is that of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. When the new Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed in 1861 Florence was chosen as the seat of government and remained such till 1871.

Few cities have affected more profoundly the course of civilization. In many ways mankind has drawn from Florence its highest inspiration. Among the great poets Dante was a Florentine, while Petrarch and Boccaccio were sons of Florentines. Among the great painters Giotto found in Florence patronage and a proper field for his genius. Fra Angelico (Giovanni da Fiesole) was a Florentine, likewise Masaccio and Donatello. Unrivalled sculptors, like Lorenzo Ghiberti and Michelangelo, architects like Brunelleschi, universal savants like Leone Battista Alberti, shine like brilliant gems in the city's diadem of fame, and mark in some respects the highest attainments of humanity. Florence was long the chief centre of the Renaissance, the leaders of which were either citizens or welcome guests of that city, e. g. Michael Chrysoloras, Giovanni Argi ropulo, Leonardo Bruni, Cristoforo Landolfo, Niccolo Niccoli, Pico della Mirandola, and others scarcely less distinguished for their devotion to Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, art, and antiquities. It was capable at the same time of an incredible enthusiasm for Plato, whom men like Marsilio Ficino wished to see canonized (Sieveking, Gesch. der platon. Akademie zu Florenz, Gottingen, 1812), and of an equally passionate zeal for the restoration of all things in Christ (see SAVONAROLA). For its role in the restoration and development of classical literary taste, both Greek and Latin, see HUMANISM, and for its share in the growth of the fine arts see RENAISSANCE.

INSTITUTIONS AND BUILDINGS

Florence is the seat of a university, and possesses also an institute of social science, conservatory of music, a botanical garden, and an observatory (astronomical, meteorological, and seismological). Various scientific societies have their centres there, e. g. the Accademia della Crusca, whose famous Italian dictionary is one of the glories of the city. The city has four libraries containing many rare manuscripts. The Biblioteca Nazionale, one of the largest and most important in Europe, founded in 1861 by merger of the famous Magliabecchiana and the former (Pitti) Bibliotheca Palatina; the Laurentiana, founded in 1444 by Cosimo de' Medici; the Marucelliana, containing a collection of brasses; the Riccardiana. The State archives are the most important in Italy. Various art collections are: the Uffizi Gallery; the Pitti, in the old palace of the grand dukes; the archaeological museum with its fine collection of coins and tapestries; the Museum of the Duomo or cathedral; the Accademia delle belle arti (Academy of the Fine Arts); and the Casa Buonarroti (house of Michelangelo). The charitable institutions include: the Great Hospital (Arcispedale) of Santa Maria Nuova (1800 beds), founded in 1285 by Falco Portinari, the father of Dante's Beatrice; the Hospital of the Innocents, or Foundling Hospital (1421); a home for the blind; an insane asylum, and many private charities.

Among the numerous charitable works of Florence the most popularly known is that of the "Confraternità della Misericordia", founded in 1244, and attached to the oratory of that name close by the cathedral. Its members belong to all classes of Florentine society, the highest as well as the lowest, and are bound to quit all work or occupation at the sound of the oratory bell, and hasten to any scene of accident, violent illness, sudden death, and the like. The costume of the brotherhood is a rough black robe and girdle, with a hood that completely covers the head except two loopholes for the eyes. Thus attired, a little group may frequently be seen hastening through the streets of Florence, bearing on their shoulders the sick or the dead to the specific institution that is to care for them (Bakounine, "La miséricorde à Florence" in "Le Correspondant", 1884, 805-26).

The chief industries are the manufacture of majolica ware, the copying of art works and their sale, also the manufacture of felt and straw hats.

The more noted of the public squares of Florence are the Piazza della Signoria (Palazzo Vecchio, Loggia de' Lanzi, and the historic fountain by Ammannati); the Piazza del Duomo; the Piazza di Santa Croce with its monument to Dante; the Piazza di Santa Maria Novella, adorned by two obelisks. Among the famous churches of Florence are the following: Santa Maria del Fiore, otherwise the Duomo or cathedral, begun in 1296 by Arnolfo del Cambio, consecrated in 1436 by Eugene IV, and called del Fiore (of the flower), either in reference to the name of the city or to the municipal arms, a red lily on a white ground. It is about 140 yards long, and badly proportioned. The admirable Campanile was begun by Giotto, but finished by Taddeo Gaddi (1334-36). The majestic dome is by Brunelleschi (1420) and furnished inspiration to Michelangelo for the dome of St. Peter's. The façade was not completed until 1887; the bronze doors are also a work of recent date. The Baptistery of San Giovanni dates from the seventh century; it was remodelled in 1190, again in the fifteenth century, and is octagonal in form. San Giovanni was the old cathedral of Florence, around which in Lombard times (seventh and eighth centuries) the city grew up. Some have maintained that it rises on the site of an ancient temple of Mars. Dante mentions it twice with veneration in the Paradiso (xv, 136-37; xvi, 25-27). The three massive bronze doors of the Baptistery are unparalleled in the world; one of them is the work of Andrea Pisano (1330), the remaining two are the masterpieces of Lorenzo Ghiberti (1403-47), and were declared by Michelangelo fit to serve as the gates of paradise. Santa Croce (Franciscans) is a Gothic church (1294-1442), with frescoes by Giotto and his school. It is a kind of national Pantheon, and contains monuments to many illustrious Italians. In the cloister stands the chapel of the Pazzi family, the work of Brunelleschi, with many rich friezes by the della Robbia. (Ozanam, "Sainte Croix de Florence" in "Poètes franciscains ital.", Paris, 1852, 273-80). Santa Maria Novella, the Dominican counterpart of Santa Croce, begun in 1278 by Fra Jacopo Talenti da Nipozzano, is also a Gothic edifice. The façade is by Leone Battista Alberti. The church contains frescoes by Orcagna, Ghirlandaio, and Fra Lippo Lippi. In its Ruccellai chapel is the famous Madonna of Cimabue. Or San Michele, a unique artistic monument, was meant originally, it is said, for a corn-market, but was remodelled in 1336. On the exterior walls are to be seen admirable statues of the patron saints of the various Florentine guilds, the work of Verrocchio, Donatello, Ghiberti, and others. San Lorenzo, dedi cated in 393 under the holy bishop Zanobius by St. Ambrose, with a sermon yet preserved (P. L., XIV, 107), was altered to its present shape (1421-61) by Brunelleschi and Manetti at the instance of Cosimo de' Medici. It contains in its sacristies (Nuova, Vecchia) tombs of the Medici by Verrocchio, and more famous ones by Michelangelo. San Marco (1290), with its adjacent convent decorated in fresco by Fra Angelico was the home also of Fra Bartolommeo della Porta, and of Savonarola. Santissima Trinità contains frescoes by Ghirlandaio. Santa Maria del Carmine, con tains the Brancacci Chapel, with frescoes by Masaccio, Masolino, and Filippino Lippi. Other monumental or historic churches are the. Santissima Annunziata (mother-house of the Servites) and the Renaissance church of Ognissanti (Franciscan).

Several Benedictine abbeys have had much to do with the ecclesiastical history of Florence. Among them are San Miniato, on the Arno, about twenty-one miles from Florence, restored in the eleventh century, since the seventeenth century an episcopal see (Cappelletti, "Chiese d' Italia", Venice, 1862, XVII 305-47; Rondoni, "Memorie storiche di San Miniato", Venice, 1877, p. 1148); La Badia di Santa Maria, founded in 977 (Galletti, Ragionamenti dell' origine e de' primi tempi della Badia Fiorentina, Rome, 1773); San Salvatore a Settimo, founded in 988; Vallombrosa founded in 1039 by St. John Gualbert. All of these being within easy reach of the city, exercised strong religious influence, particularly in the long conflict between the Church and the Empire. Besides the public buildings already mentioned, we may note the Loggia del Bigallo, the Palazzo del Podestà (1255) now used as a museum, the Palazzo Strozzi, Palazzo Riccardi, Palazzo Rucellai, and several other private edifices of architectural and historic interest.

EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION

St. Frontinus is said by local tradition to have been the first bishop and a disciple of St. Peter. In the Decian persecution St. Miniatus (San Miniato) is said to have suffered martyrdom. It is to him that is dedicated the famous church of the same name on the hill overlooking the city. It has been suggested that Miniatus is but a form of Minias (Mena), the name of a saint who suffered at Alexandria. In 313 we find Bishop Felix mentioned as present that year at a Roman synod. About 400 we meet with the above-mentioned St. Zanobius. In the following centuries Florence sank into obscurity, and little is known of its civil or ecclesiastical life. With St. Reparatus (fi. 679), the patron of the Duomo, begins the unbroken line of episcopal succession. Among the best known of its medieval bishops are Gerardo, later Pope Nicholas II and author (1059) of the famous decree on papal elections; Pietro of Pavia, whom another Florentine, San Pietro Aldobrandini (Petrus Igneus), convicted of simony (1062); Ranieri (1101), who preached that Antichrist had already come (Mansi, Suppl. Conc., II, 217); Ardengho, under whom was fought (1245) a pitched battle with the Patarini or Catharist heretics; Antonio Orso (1309), who roused all Florence, and even his clergy, against the German Emperor Henry VII; Angelo Acciaiuoli (1383), a zealous worker for the extinction of the Western Schism; Francesco Zabarella (1410), cardinal, canonist, and philosopher, prominent at the Council of Constance. When in 1434 the see became vacant, Pope Eugene IV did it the honour to rule it in person. Other archbishops of Florence were Cardinal Giovanni Vitelleschi, captain of Eugene IV's army; the Domini can St. Antoninus Forcillioni, d. 1459; Cosimo de' Pazzi (1508), a learned humanist and philosopher; Antonio Martini, translator of the Bible into Italian (1781). In 1809 Napoleon, to the great dissatisfaction of the diocese, imposed on Florence as its archbishop Monsignor d'Osmond, Bishop of Nancy. To Eugenio Cecconi (1874-88) we owe an (unfinished) "Storia del concilio ecumenico Vaticano" (Rome, 1872-79). Archbishop Alfonso Maria Mistrangelo, of the Society of the Pious Schools (Scuole Pie), was born at Savona, in 1852, and transferred (19 June, 1899) from Pontremoli to Florence.

Saints and Popes. Florence is the mother of many saints. Besides those already mentioned, there are Bl. Uberto degli Uberti, Bl. Luca Mongoli, Bl. Dome nico Bianchi, Bl. Antonio Baldinucci, St. Catherine de' Ricci, St. Mary Magdalen de' Pazzi, and St. Philip Neri. The Florentine popes are: Leo X (1513-21), Clement VII (1523-34), Clement VIII (1592-1605), Leo XI (1605), Urban VIII (1623-44), and Clement XII (1730-40).

Since 1420 Florence has been an archdiocese; its suffragan sees are: Borgo San Sepolero, Colle di Val d'Elsa Fiesole, San Miniato, Modigliana, and the united Dioceses of Pistoia and Prato. The Archdiocese of Florence has 800 secular and 336 regular clergy; 479 parishes and 1900 churches, chapels, and oratories; 200 theological students; 44 monasteries (men) and 80 convents (women). In 1907 the population of the archdiocese, almost exclusively Catholic, was 500,000.

The literature of this subject is so extensive that only a few titles can be here given. General bibliographies will be found in CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl. (Paris, 1894--) 8. v., and P. BIGAZZI, Firenze e contorni, manuale bibliographico-biografico (Florence, 1893), 360. ECCLESIASTICAL:--CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1861), XVI, 407-12; CERRACHINI, Cronologia sacra dei vescovi ed arcivescovi di frirenze (Florence, 1718 LAMIO, Sacrce Ecc. Florentinae Monumenta (Florence, 1738; GORI, Hagiologium Ecc. Florent. (Florence, 1787); RICHA, Notizie istoriche delle chiese florentine (Florence 1754-62); COCCHI Le chiese di Firenze dal secolo IV jino al secolo XX (Florence, 1903). The reader may also consult the seventeenth-century documentary work of UGHELLI, Italia Sacra, III, 14 sqq., and F. M. FIORENTINI, Hetruscae pietatis origines (Lucca, 1701); also CIANFOGNI (ed. MORENI), Memorie istoriche delta Ambrosiana basilica di San Lorenzo (Florence, 1804, 1816, 17); LUMACHI, Mernorie storiche dell' antica basilica di San Giovanni di Firenze (Florence, 1782) and G. BEFANI, Memorie storiche dell' antica basilica di San Giovanni di Firenze (Florence, 1886); GODKIN, The Monastery of San Marco in Florence (London, 1887). For the hospitals and other charitable works of Florence, see PASSERINI, Storia degli stabilimenti di beneficenza della città di Firenze (Florence, 1853).--For the ecclesiastical sciences in Florence see CERRACHINI, Catalogo generate de' teologi della eccelsa univ. Fiorentina (Florence, 1725); IDEM, Faati teologici (Florence, 1738); SCHIFF, L'Università degli studi in Firenze (Bologna, 1887). CIVIL:--Florentine historiography is very rich, and may best be studied in special introductory works like BALZANI, Le Cronache d'Italia (Milan, 1884). also in Eng. tr. S. P. C. K.: cf. HEGEL, Ueber die Anjange der florentinischen Geschichtschreiburg in SYBEL, Hist. Zeitschrift (1876), XXXV, 32-63; also the pertinent writings of SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, e. g. Florentiner Studien (Leipzig i873). For the Historie Fiorentine, or Chronica of GIOVANNI VILLANI (d. 1348), see the Turin edition (1879) and for the still more celebrated Historic Fiorenline, libri VIII oi MACHIAVELLI see the PASSERINI edition (Florence, 1873), and the Eng. tr. in Bohn's Standard Library (1847). Among the modern comprehensive histories of Florence may be mentioned: CAPPONI, Storia delta repubblica florentina (3d ed., Florence, 1886); VILLARI, Storia di Firenze (Milan, 1890); IDEM, I due primi secoli delta storia di Firenze (Florence, 1893-98); PER HENS, Histoire de Florence depuis see origines jusqu'à la domination des Médici (9 vols., Paris, 1877-90) HARTWIG, Quellen und Forschungen zur älteren Geschichte der Stadt Florenz (Marburg, 1878), Much important material, both ecclesiastical and civil, for the medieval history of Florence, is found in MURATORI'S famous collection of medieval Italian annals and chronicles: Scriptores Rerum Itahcarum, 28 folio volumes (Milan, 1723-1751; new ed. small quarto, 1900 sqq.).
MISCELLANEOUS:--YRIARTE, Florence, l'histoire les Médicis les humanistes lea lettres, tea arts (Paris, 1880), tr. (London, 1882); KLEINPAUL, Florenz in Wort und Bud (Leipzig, 1888); MORENI, Notizie istoriche dei contorni di Firenze (Florence, 1790-96); OLIPHANT The Makers of Florence, Dante, Giotto, Savonarota and their City (London, 1880) E. M. CLERKE, Florence in the Time of Dante in Dublin Review (1879), LXXXV, 279, The writings of Ruskin (1819-1900) on Italian art abound with studies and impressions of the Florentine artists. SYMONDS, The Age of the Renaissance (London, 1882--) deals at great length with the literary and political figures of Florentine history in the fifteenth century; in ecclesiastical matters he is not unfrequently prejudiced, insular, and unduly harsh. The German writings of VON REUMONT have also done much to make better known the medieval influence and prestige of the great city by the Arno.

U. BENIGNI

The Council of Florence

The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council was, correctly speaking, the continuation of the Council of Ferrara, transferred to the Tuscan capital because of the pest; or, indeed, a continuation of the Council of Basle, which was convoked in 1431 by Martin V. In the end the last-named assembly became a revolutionary conciliabulum, and is to be judged variously, according as we consider the manner of its convocation, its membership, or its results. Generally, however, it is ranked as an ecumenical council until the decree of dissolution in 1437. After its transfer to Ferrara, the first session of the council was held 10 Jan., 1438. Eugene IV proclaimed it the regular continuation of the Council of Basle, and hence its ecumenical character is admitted by all.

The Council of Constance (1414-18) had seen the growth of a fatal theory, based on the writings of William Durandus (Guillaume Durant), John of Paris, Marsiglio of Padua, and William of Occam, i.e. the conciliar theory that proclaimed the superiority of the council over the pope. It was the outcome of much previous conflict and embitterment; was hastily voted in a time of angry confusion by an incompetent body; and, besides leading eventually to the deplorable articles of the "Declaratio Cleri Gallicani" (see GALLICANISM), almost provoked at the time new schisms. Influenced by this theory, the members of the Council of Constance promulgated in the thirty-fifth general session (9 October, 1417) five decrees, the first being the famous decree known as "Frequens", according to which an ecumenical council should be held every ten years. In other words, the council was henceforth to be a permanent, indispensable institution, that is, a kind of religious parliament meeting at regular intervals, and including amongst its members the ambassadors of Catholic sovereigns; hence the ancient papal monarchy, elective but absolute, was to give way to a constitutional oligarchy.

While Martin V, naturally enough, refused to recognize these decrees, he was unable to make headway openly against a movement which he considered fatal. In accordance, therefore, with the decree "Frequens" he convoked an ecumenical council at Pavia for 1423, and later, yielding to popular opinion, which even many cardinals countenanced, summoned a new council at Basle to settle the difficulties raised by the anti-Hussite wars. A Bull of 1 Feb., 1431, named as president of the council Giuliano Cesarini, Cardinal of Sant' Angelo, whom the pope had sent to Germany to preach a crusade against the Hussites. Martin V died suddenly (20 February, 1431), before the Bull of convocation and the legatine faculties reached Cesarini. However, the new pope, Eugene IV (Gabriele Condolmieri), confirmed the acts of his predecessor with the reservation that further events might cause him to revoke his decision. He referred probably to the reunion of the Greek Church with Rome, discussed between Martin V and the Byzantine emperor (John Palaeologus), but put off by reason of the pope's death. Eugene IV laboured most earnestly for reunion, which he was destined to see accomplished in the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The Council of Basle had begun in a rather burlesque way. Canon Beaupère of Besançon, who had been sent from Basle to Rome, gave the pope an unfavourable and exaggerated account of the temper of the people of Basle and its environs. Eugene IV thereupon dissolved the council before the close of 1431, and convoked it anew at Bologna for the summer of 1433, providing at the same time for the participation of the Greeks. Cesarini, however, had already opened the council of Basle, and now insisted vigorously that the aforesaid papal act should be withdrawn. Yielding to the aggressive attitude of the Basle assembly, whose members proclaimed anew the conciliar theory, Eugene IV gradually modified his attitude towards them, and exhibited in general, throughout these painful dissensions, a very conciliatory temper.

Many reform-decrees were promulgated by the council, and, though never executed, contributed towards the final rupture. Ultimately, the unskilful negotiations of the council with the Greeks on the question of reunion moved Eugene IV to transfer it to Ferrara. The embassy sent from Basle to Constantinople (1435), Giovanni di Ragusa, Heinrich Henger, and Simon Fréron, insisted obstinately on holding at Basle the council which was to promote the union of the two Churches, but in this matter the Byzantine Emperor refused to give way. With all the Greeks he wished the council to take place in some Italian city near the sea, preferably in Southern Italy. At Basle the majority insisted, despite the Greeks, that the council of reunion should be convoked at Avignon, but a minority sided with the Greeks and was by them recognized as the true council. Hereupon Eugene IV approved the action of the minority (29 May, 1437), and for this was summoned to appear before the council. He replied by dissolving it on 18 September. Wearied of the obstinacy of the majority at Basle, Cardinal Cesarini and his adherents then quitted the city and went to Ferrara, whither Eugene IV, as stated above, had transferred the council by decree of 30 December, 1437, or 1 January, 1438.

The Ferrara Council opened on 8 January, 1438, under the presidency of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, whom the pope had commissioned to represent him until he could appear in person. It had, of course, no other objects than those of Basle, i.e. reunion of the Churches, reforms, and the restoration of peace between Christian peoples. The first session of the council took place 10 January, 1438. It declared the Council of Basle transferred to Ferrara, and annulled in advance any and all future decrees of the Basle assembly. When Eugene IV heard that the Greeks were nearing the coast of Italy, he set off (24 January) for Ferrara and three days later made his solemn entry into the city. The manner of voting was first discussed by the members of the council. Should it be, as at Constance, by nations (nationes), or by committees (commissiones)? It was finally decided to divide the members into three estates:

• the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops;
• the abbots and prelates;
• the doctors and other members.

In order that the vote of any estate might count, it was resolved that a majority of two-thirds should be required, and it was hoped that this provision would remove all possibility of the recurrence of the regrettable dissensions at Constance. At the second public session (15 February) these decrees were promulgated, and the pope excommunicated the members of the Basle assembly, which still continued to sit. The Greeks soon appeared at Ferrara, headed by Emperor John Palaeologus and Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and numbered about seven hundred. The solemn sessions of the council began on 9 April, 1438, and were held in the cathedral of Ferrara under the presidency of the pope. On the Gospel side of the altar rose the (unoccupied) throne of the Western Emperor (Sigismund of Luxemburg), who had died only a month previously; on the Epistle side was placed the throne of the Greek Emperor. Besides the emperor and his brother Demetrius, there were present, on the part of the Greeks, Joasaph, the Patriarch of Constantinople; Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea; Gregory Hamma, the Protosyncellus of Constantinople (the last two representing the Patriarch of Alexandria); Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch); Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem); Bessarion, Archbishop of Nicaea; Balsamon, the chief chartophylax; Syropulos, the chief ecclesiarch, and the Bishops of Monembasia, Lacedaemon, and Anchielo. In the discussions the Latins were represented principally by Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini and Cardinal Niccolò Albergati; Andrew, Archbishop of Rhodes; the Bishop of Forlì; the Dominican John of Turrecremata; and Giovanni di Ragusa, provincial of Lombardy.

Preliminary discussions brought out the main points of difference between the Greeks and the Latins, viz. the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the azymes, purgatory, and the primacy. During these preliminaries the zeal and good intentions of the Greek Emperor were evident. Serious discussion began apropos of the doctrine of purgatory. Cesarini and Turrecremata were the chief Latin speakers, the latter in particular engaging in a violent discussion with Marcus Eugenicus. Bessarion, speaking for the Greeks, made clear the divergency of opinion existing among the Greeks themselves on the question of purgatory. This stage of the discussion closed on 17 July, whereupon the council rested for a time, and the Greek Emperor took advantage of the respite to join eagerly in the pleasures of the chase with the Duke of Ferrara.

When the council met again (8 Oct., 1438), the chief (indeed, thenceforth the only) subject of discussion was the Filioque. The Greeks were represented by Bessarion, Marcus Eugenicus, Isidore of Kiev, Gemistus Plethon, Balsamon, and Kantopulos; on the Latin side were Cardinals Cesarini and Niccolò Albergati, the Archbishop of Rhodes, the Bishop of Forlì, and Giovanni di Ragusa. In this and the following fourteen sessions, the Filioque was the sole subject of discussion. In the fifteenth session it became clear that the Greeks were unwilling to consent to the insertion of this expression in the Creed, although it was imperative for the good of the church and as a safeguard against future heresies. Many Greeks began to despair of realizing the projected union and spoke of returning to Constantinople. To this the emperor would not listen; he still hoped for a reconciliation, and in the end succeeded in appeasing the heated spirits of his partisans. Eugene IV now announced his intention of transferring the council to Florence, in consequence of pecuniary straits and the outbreak of the pest at Ferrara. Many Latins had already died, and of the Greeks the Metropolitan of Sardis and the entire household of Isidore of Kiev were attacked by the disease. The Greeks finally consented to the transfer, and in the sixteenth and last session at Ferrara the papal Bull was read, in both Latin and Greek, by which the council was transferred to Florence (January, 1439).

The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome.

The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. The emperor remained faithful, but some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II.

One advantage, at least, resulted from the Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see BASLE, COUNCIL OF). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy, and facilitated, the return of men like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who in his youth had taken part in the Council of Basle, but ended by recognizing its erroneous attitude, and finally became pope under the name Pius II.

L. VAN DER ESSEN

Florence of Worcester

English chronicler; all that is known of his personal history is that he was a monk of Worcester and that he died in 1118. His "Chronicon ex Chronicis" is the first attempt made in England to write a universal chronicle from the creation onwards, but the universal part is based entirely on the work of Marianus Scotus an Irish monk who died at Mainz about 1082. To this Florence added a number of references to English history taken from Bede, the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", and various biographies. The portions borrowed from the "Chronicle" are of value because he used a version which has not been preserved. Florence begins to be an independent authority in 1030, and his "Chronicle" goes down to 1117; it is annalistic in form, but a very useful record of events. John, another monk of Worcester, continued the "Chronicon" to 1141, and other writers took it down to 1295.

F.F. URQUHART

St. Florentina

Virgin; born towards the middle of the sixth century; died about 612. The family of St. Florentina furnishes us with a rare example of lives genuinely religious, and actively engaged in furthering the best interests of Christianity. Sister of three Spanish bishops in the time of the Visigothic dominion (Leander, Isidore, and Fulgentius), she consecrated her virginity to God, and all four have been canonized by the Church. Florentina was born about the middle of the sixth century, being younger than her brother Leander, later Archbishop of Seville, but older than Isidore, who succeeded Leander as archbishop of the same see. Before his elevation to the episcopal dignity, Leander had been a monk, and it was through his influence that Florentina embraced the ascetic life. She associated with herself a number of virgins, who also desired to forsake the world, and formed them into a religious community. Later sources declare their residence to have been the convent of S. Maria de Valle near Ecija (Astigis), of which city her brother Fulgentius was bishop. In any case, it is certain that she had consecrated herself to God before the year 600, as her brother Leander, who died either in the year 600 or 601, wrote for her guidance an extant work dealing with a nun's rule of life and with contempt for the world ("Regula sive Libellus de institutione virginum et de contemptu mundi ad Florentinam sororem", P.L. LXXII, 873 sqq.). In it the author lays down the rules according to which cloistered virgins consecrated to God should regulate their lives. He strongly advises them to avoid intercourse with women living in the world, and with men, especially youths; recommends strict temperance in eating and drinking, gives advice concerning the reading of and meditation on Holy Scripture, enjoins equal love and friendship for all those living together in community, and exhorts his sister earnestly to remain true to her holy state. Florentina regulated her life according to the advice of her brother, entered with fervour into the spirit of the religious life, and was honoured as a saint after her death. Her younger brother Isidore also dedicated to her his work "De fide catholica contra Jud=E6os", which he wrote at her request. Florentina died early in the seventh century and is venerated as the patroness of the diocese of Plasencia. Her feast falls on 20 June. The name is written Florentia in the Roman martyrology, but Florentina is without doubt the correct form.

J. P. KIRSCH

Enrique Flórez

Spanish theologian, archeologist, and historian; born at Valladolid, 14 February, 1701; died at Madrid, 20 August, 1773. While still very young (1715) he joined the Order of St. Augustine, and thereafter he devoted his entire life to great works on history and antiquities, which are valuable contributions to the civil and ecclesiastical history of Spain. He was one of the most learned men produced by Spain, and on account of his learning enjoyed the respect and friendship of the most eminent men of his time. His best-known and most important work is "La España Sagrada, ó teatro geográfico-histórico de la Iglesia de España" (51 vols., Madrid, 1747----), a work following the same plan as the "Gallia christiana" of Sainte-Marthe and the "Italia sacra" of Ughelli. It is a history of the Church in Spain, with biographies of bishops, and its value is enhanced by the insertion of ancient documents which are not to be found elsewhere. But the work was of such large scope that he did not live to finish his task, so that, of the fifty-one volumes of which the history consists, Flórez wrote and published only a little more than half (twenty-nine volumes), the rest being written and published after his death by two other Augustinians, Fathers Risco and Fernández. This and other works of Father Flórez are enriched by carefully made illustrations which serve still further to increase their value. In 1743 he published his historical work, the curious "Llave historial", a work similar to the French "Art de vórifier les dates", but having the advantage of priority over the latter, which did not appear until 1750. This book passed through several later editions in 1774, 1786, and 1790. It did not, however, add much to the literary fame of its author. Father Flórez had pursued studies in numismatics and published "España carpetana; medallas de las colonias, municipios, y pueblos antiguos de España" (3 vols., Madrid, 1757), dealing with the history of Spain when that country was occupied by the Romans. Other works of Flórez were "Cursus Theologiae" (5 vols., Madrid, 1732-38), one of his earlier works, and "Memorias de las reynas Católicas (2 vols., Madrid, 1761, 1770, and 1779), a genealogical history of the royal house of Leon and Castile. Mendez, Noticia de la Vida y Escritos de Enrique Flórez (Madrid, 1780).

VENTURA FUENTES

Jeanne-Pierre Claris, Chevalier de Florian

Born at the château of Florian (Gard), 6 March, 1755; died at Sceaux, 13 September, 1794. An orphan at an early age, he was brought up by his grandfather and studied at St-Hippolyte. At ten years of age he was taken by one of his uncles who was related to Voltaire, to the château of Ferney. The influence of the philosopher was already beginning to be felt by the child when he was sent in 1768 to the Duke of Penthièvre, to act as a page. His sojourn at the château of Anet was very beneficial to him. Not only did the duke interest himself in his studies, and direct his readings, but he gave him good advice and made him promise that he would never write except with reserve and decency. Upon leaving the service of the Duke of Penthièvre, he entered the military school at Bapaume, obtained a commission in the dragoons of Penthièvre, but soon abandoned the army for literature and began to write comedies. He was elected to the Académie Française in 1788. Arrested at Sceaux in 1793, he owed his life to the death of Robespierre, but he outlived the terrors of his imprisonment only a short time. To modern readers, Florian is chiefly known as the author of pretty fables well suited as reading for the young, but his contemporaries praised him also for his poetical and pastoral novels. He was the Boucher and the Watteau of the literature of the eighteenth century and it is remarkable that some of his graceful and delicate works were written in the midst of the Revolution. The list of his works is long. Worthy of mention are: two pastoral novels, "Galatée" and "Estelle"; two poetical novels, "Numa Pompilius" and "Gonzalve de Cordoue"; three volumes of comedies, the principal being "Les Deux Billets", "Le Bon Ménage", "Le Bon Père", "Jeannot et Colin"; two volumes of short stories, a few religious poems, like "Ruth" and "Tobie", etc. Florian was very fond of Spain and its literature, doubtless owing to the influence of his mother, Gilette de Salgue, who was a Castilian. He was loved by his contemporaries as well for his character as for his writings, and he was much praised for his charity.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

The Florians

(Floriacenses), an altogether independent order, and not, as some consider, a branch of the Cistercians; it was founded in 1189 by the Abbot Joachim of Flora (q.v.), by whom its constitutions were drawn up. Besides preserving a number of Cistercian observances, the founder added to the austerities of Cîteaux. The Florians went barefoot; their habits were white and very coarse. Their Breviary differed in the distribution of Offices from that of Cîteaux. The constitutions were approved by Pope Celestine III in 1196. The order spread rapidly, soon numbering as many as thirty-five monasteries, but it seems not to have extended beyond Italy. In 1470 the regular abbots were replaced by commendatory abbots, but the abuses of this regime hastened the decline of the order. In 1505 the Abbey of Flora and its affiliated monasteries were united to the Order of Cîteaux. In 1515 other Florian monasteries united themselves to the Grande Chartreuse or to the Dominicans, and in 1570, after a century under the regime of commendatory abbots, not a single independent monastery remained, and the Order of Flora had ceased to exist. Under the Abbot of Flora were also four monasteries of religious women, who followed the Florian rule.

EDMOND M. OBRECHT

Florida

The Peninsular or Everglade State, the most southern in the American Union and second largest east of the Mississippi, lies between parallels 24° 38' and 31° N. latitude and meridians 79° 48' and 87° 38' W. longitude. Its name, commemorative of its discovery by Ponce de Leon at Eastertide (Sp. Pascua florida), 1513, or less probably descriptive of the verdant aspect of the country, was originally applied to territory extending northward to Virginia and westward indefinitely from the Atlantic. Florida is bounded north by Alabama and Georgia, east by the Atlantic, south by the Straits of Florida and Gulf of Mexico, and west by the Gulf and the Perdido River. It contains 58,680 sq. miles, 4440 being lake and river area. Politically, the State is divided into forty-six counties, geographically into the peninsular section, stretching 450 miles north and south, average width 95 miles, and the continental or northern portion, measuring 400 miles from Alabama to the Atlantic, mean width 65 miles. Its eastern coast-line, comparatively regular, is 470 miles long; it is paralleled almost its entire length by sand reefs which enclose an inland waterway, and its outline is prolonged in the chain of coral and sandy islets known as the Florida Keys, which extend 200 miles in a south-westerly direction, terminating in the Tortugas. Over the Keys an extension of the Florida East Coast Railroad from the mainland to Key West is in course of construction. The deep-water ports are Fernandina, Jacksonville, and Key West. The Gulf coast-line, sinuous in conformation, measures 675 miles; the chief ports are Tampa, Apalachicola, and Pensacola.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The Everglades, often erroneously described as swamp-lands, form the characteristic feature of Southern Florida. They consist mainly of submerged saw-grass plains extending 130 by 70 miles, studded with numerous islands which produce a semi-tropical jungle-growth. The surface water, ordinarily about knee-deep, pure, potable, and abounding in fish, has a perceptible southbound current. A limestone substratum occasionally appears through a bedbottom of vegetable mould. While subterranean sources of supply are contributory, the inundation chiefly results from the overflow of Lake Okeechobee (1200 sq. miles), whose rock-rimmed shores, 18 feet above sea-level, exceed by 10 feet the general elevation of the Everglades. North of the lake, extending through the counties of De Soto, Manatee, Osceola, and Brevard, lie vast tracts of prairie or savanna land with large swamp areas. This is the cattle region of Florida. Farther north, and embracing the counties of Polk, Lake, Orange, Sumter, Marion, and Alachua, is the fertile and picturesque rolling country of the central ridge with a general altitude of 200, and elevations approaching 300 feet above sea-level. This is the lake region; Lakes Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga, Apopka, Harris, and George are chief amongst thousands. The extensive coastal plains, comprising the entire area of the Gulf and Atlantic seaboard counties, are low-lying sandy tracts, monotonously level and frequently marshy. These constitute the pine region of Florida. The northern portion of middle Florida, between the Suwannee and Apalachicola Rivers, while corresponding in general altitude and topography to the central ridge, differs widely from all other parts of the State. Red clay and loam of surpassing fertility replace the elsewhere prevalent thin sandy soils, while the featureless aspect of boundless pine plains and the recurrent sameness of undulating landscape are replaced by a rare exuberance and diversity of highland, plain, lake, and woodland scenery. Florida is an exceedingly well-wooded and well-watered State. Pine, cypress, cedar, oak, magnolia, hickory, and sweet gum everywhere abound, while there are good supplies of rarer hardwoods and semi-tropical varieties. There are, including the East Coast Canal nearing completion, nearly 2000 miles of navigable waterways. The chief rivers flowing into the Atlantic are: St. Mary's, forming part of the northern boundary; St. John's, 300 miles long, navigable for 200 miles; Indian River, properly a salt-water lagoon or sound, forming part of the East Coast Canal. The Caloosahatchee, Peace, Manatee, Withlacoochee, Suwannee, Ocilla, Ocklockonee, Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, Yellow River, Escambia, and Perdido empty into the Gulf. The Kissimmee enters Lake Okeechobee. Characteristic of the State are its immense mineral springs: Silver, Wakulla, Chipola, Green Cove, and White Springs are the principal. The remarkably mild and agreeable climate of Florida makes it a favourite winter resort. The average annual temperature ranges from 68° at Pensacola to 70° at Key West; extremes of heat or cold are rarely experienced; the annual rainfall is about 60 inches.

RESOURCES

Agriculture

Diversity of product, rather than abundance of yield, is noticeable. Besides semi-tropical productions, all varieties common in higher latitudes, except a few cereals, may be profitably cultivated in Florida. The soil, exclusive of the impartially distributed fertile hammock lands, i. e. limited areas enriched by decomposed vegetable deposit, is excessively sandy and rather poor in quality, yet surprisingly responsive to cultivation. Even where the soil is not especially prolific the warm, humid climate stimulates a rapid and vigorous plant growth. In 1905, 31,233 farms were operated by whites, 14,231 by negroes, 20 by others; farm acreage, 4,758,874; 1,621,362 acres being improved. Value of farms, $51,464,124; operating expenses, $3,914,296; products, $40,131,814; field crops, $13,632,641; fruit crops, $5,423,390; live stock, $14,731,521. Crops in order of value: cotton, 282,078 acres, 80,485 bales, value $4,749,351; corn, 455,274 acres, 4,888,958 bushels, value $3,315,965; peanuts, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, beans, white potatoes, tobacco, celery, hay, watermelons, oats, lettuce, cabbage, cucumbers. The mort valuable fruit crop was the orange: 1,768,944 bearing trees, producing 2,961,195 boxes, value $3,353,609; followed in order of value by pineapples, grapefruit, strawberries, and peaches. Live stock included 36,131 horses, 19,331 mules, 69 asses, 1,010,454 cattle, 604,742 swine, 115324 sheep, 33,150 goats.

Commerce and Industries

The report for the last statistical year shows a remarkable increase in commercial and industrial activities; 1906 manufacturing establishments, capital $42,157,080, paid $18,048,599 to 52,345 wage-earners; value of manufactured products, $53,506,154. The leading industries and value of annual output are: cigarmaking, about $15,000,000 (returns incomplete); lumber, $15,210,916; naval stores, $10,196,327; phosphate, $6,601,000. The value of exports (overland being about as much more, not included) was $62,655,559 for 1906, cigars comprising one-third this amount, the remainder being almost equally divided between lumber, naval stores, and phosphate; the value of imports was $6,654,546. The fisheries of the west coast and sponge industry of the Keys are important, giving employment to 6000 men and yielding an annual product valued at $1,500,000. The total assessed valuation of taxable property in the State was (1904) $111,333,735; State debt, $601,567. On 1 March, 1908, eighteen railroads, with a total mileage of 4104, main track 2948, miles, were in operation.

HISTORY

The landing of Ponce de Leon on the shores of Florida probably on the Sunday after Easter, 3 April, 1513, is the first positively authenticated instance of the presence of Europeans on the mainland of the United States. This expedition, which popular narrative invests with romantic glamour, was undertaken according to the royal patent of authorization "to discover and people the island of Bimini". Ponce named the land Florida in honour of the Easter festival, set up a stone cross with an inscription, and impressed with the hostile character of the natives, returned after six months' exploration to Porto Rico. His attempt to establish a colony in 1521 was doomed to speedy failure. The voyages of Miruelo (1516), Cordova (1517), Pineda (1519), Ayllón (1520), and Gomez (1524) accomplished little beyond establishing the fact that Florida was not an island but part of a vast continent. The disastrous outcome of the expeditions of Pánfilo Narvaez (1527-28), of Hernando de Soto (1538-43), and of Tristan de Luna (1559-61) are well-known episodes in the early history of America. On the failure of Ribault's French colony, founded at Port Royal (1562), René de Laudonnière planted the new settlement of Fort Caroline at the mouth of St. John's River (1564). Pedro Menendez de Avilés, the foremost naval commander of his day, learning that Ribault had left France with reinforcements and supplies for the new colony, set out to intercept him and banish for ever French Huguenots from the land that belonged by right of discovery to Catholic Spain. Menendez never undertook an enterprise and failed. He reached the harbour of St. Augustine 28 August, 1565, naming it for the saint of the day. The founding of the oldest city in the United States merits a brief description. After devoting a week to reconnoitring, Menendez entered the harbour on 6 September. Three companies of soldiers were sent ashore under two captains, to select a site and begin a fort. On 8 September Menendez landed, and amid the booming of artillery and the blast of trumpets the standard of Castile and Leon was unfurled. The chaplain, Father Lopez de Mendoza, carrying a cross and followed by the troops, proceeded to meet the general who advanced to the cross, which he kissed on bended knee as did those of his staff. The solemn Mass of Our Lady's Nativity was then offered on a spot which was ever afterward called Nombre de Dios. On 20 Sept. Fort Caroline was taken by surprise, only women and children being spared. The merciless slaughter of Ribault and his shipwrecked companions by Menendez a few days subsequently is an indelible stain on a singularly noble record. The story, so assiduously copied by successive historiographers, that Avilés hanged some of his prisoners on trees and attached the inscription No por franceses sino por Luteranos, is an apocryphal embellishment (see Spanish Settlements, II, 178). Two years later De Gourgues retaliated by slaughtering the Spanish garrison at Fort Caroline.

The history of Florida during the first Spanish administration (1565-1763) centres round St. Augustine, and is rather of religious than political importance. English buccaneers under Drake in 1586 and again under Davis in 1665 plundered and sacked the town. Distrust and hostility usually prevailed between the Spanish colonies and their northern English neighbours. Governor Moore of South Carolina made an unsuccessful attempt in 1702 to capture St. Augustine, and in 1704 laid waste the country of the civilized Apalachee. Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia invaded Florida in 1740, besieging St. Augustine with a large force but was repulsed by the Spanish Governor Monteano and forced to retreat. Spain ceded Florida to England in 1763. During the English period great efforts were made to populate the country and develop its resources, but religion suffered irreparably. During the second Spanish occupation (1783-1821) some unimportant military operations took place in West Florida under General Andrew Jackson in 1814 and 1818. In consequence of the treaty of 1819, the Americans took possession of Florida in 1821. In 1822 Florida became a territory of the United States, William P. Duval being appointed first governor. The following year Tallahassee was selected as the new capital. The refusal of the warlike Seminoles to repair to reservations resulted in the long, costly, and discreditable Indian War (1835-42), which came to an end in the capture by treachery of Osceola.

Florida was admitted to Statehood in 1845. The State seceded from the Union 10 January, 1861. In 1862 minor engagements between the Federal and Confederate forces took place; the Federal troops occupied Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Fernandina, but the Confederates, under General Finegan, gained a decisive victory over the Union forces commanded by General Seymour at Olustee in 1864. In proportion to population Florida furnished more troops than any other Confederate State; they took an honourable part in the campaigns of Tennessee and Virginia, and bore a distinguished reputation for steadfast endurance on the march and conspicuous gallantry on the battlefield. Florida gave to the higher ranks of the Confederate service three major-generals, Loring, Anderson, and Smith, and the Brigadier-Generals Brevard, Bullock, Finegan, Miller, Davis, Finley, Perry, and Shoup. The State was represented in the Confederate Cabinet by Stephen H. Mallory, Secretary of the Navy. If the war proved disastrous to Florida, the subsequent reconstruction added despair to disaster when citizens witnessed the control of public affairs pass into the hands of unscrupulous adventurers. The ordinance of secession was repealed in October, 1865, and a State government organized in 1866. In 1868 a new constitution having been adopted and the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, Florida was readmitted into the Union, but it was not till 1877, when Floridians obtained political ascendancy, that a healthy industrial growth as well as social and educational progress began to appear. The present constitution was adopted in 1886. The discovery of rich phosphate deposits in 1889 greatly improved economic conditions, and the constantly growing popularity of Eastern Florida -- the American Riviera -- as a winter resort contributes to the general prosperity.

POPULATION

The colony of 600 Spaniards founded by Menendez at St. Augustine in 1565 was the earliest permanent white settlement within the present limits of the United States. Relinquishing fruitless attempts to establish extensive settlements, Florida's Spanish conquerors early subordinated purposes of colonization to motives of military expediency, so that during an occupation of two hundred years the white population remained limited to a few stations of strategic importance. In 1648 the civilian population of St. Augustine was represented by 300 families, and in 1740, nearly a hundred years later, it numbered 2143. The various Spanish garrisons usually aggregated about 2000 men. In 1763, when Florida passed under English rule, the entire Spanish population of 5700 moved away. During the twenty years of English occupancy there was a steady influx of settlers, including numbers of loyalists from the revolted colonies. At this period the so-called Minorcan colony was founded at New Smyrna. During the second Spanish regime (1783-1821) immigration continued and, when Florida came under the United States flag in 1821, increased rapidly. The first U. S. census of 1830 gives the population at 34,730. For the thirty years following a decennial increase of 60 per cent appears, the population in 1860 being 140,424. Since 1860 the increase per decade has averaged 40 per cent. In 1900 the population was 528,542, and in 1905, 614,845, nearly 18 times that of 1830, showing in five years an increase of 86,303, or 16 per cent. In 1900 whites numbered 297,812, coloured 230,730, average number of inhabitants per square mile 9.7. Following are detailed statistics of 1908 (State census): white, 348,923; coloured, 265,737; other races, 185; average per square mile, 11.3. Foreign born white, 22,409, comprising 5867 Cubans, 3120 Italians, 2589 West Indians, 2051 English, 1945 Spanish, 1699 Germans, 1059 Canadians, 610 Irish, and 3469 of other nationalities. The Cuban population is concentrated mainly at Tampa and Key West, Spanish and Italian at Tampa, West Indian of both races at Key West; the other nationalities are scattered broadly over the State. Nine counties exhibit a slightly decreased population attributed to a shifting of negroes from the farms. In twelve counties negroes outnumber whites. Leon county has the largest percentage of coloured people, 14,880 out of 18,883 total, or 78.8 per cent; Lee county the smallest, 399 out of 3961 total, or 10 per cent. Leon has 25.8 inhabitants per square mile, Lee only 0.8; these figures are typical of racial distribution of population throughout the State. Cities over 10,000: Jacksonville 35,301, Tampa (estimated) 28,000, Pensacola 21,505; and Key West 20,498.

EDUCATION

The organization of the Florida Educational Society in 1831 was apparently the first attempt made to inaugurate a public school system. It resulted in the establishment of a free school at St. Augustine in 1832. During the ante-bellum period, owing to general lack of interest, inefficiency of educational legislation, and the prejudice that regarded public schools as "pauper" schools, but little was accomplished for the cause of popular education. In 1860 a few counties had organized public school systems, but the advent of war, and particularly the subsequent dismal process of reconstruction proved a serious blow to educational progress. The constitutional convention of 1865 gave the subject scant recognition, but that of 1868 adopted in its constitution liberal provisions, which were greatly amplified by the constitution of 1885. This constitution established a permanent State school fund, consisting mainly of proceeds of public land sales, State appropriations, and a one-mill property tax, the interest of which was to be applied to support public schools. This fund (1908) exceeds one million dollars. Each county constitutes a school unit (but when advisable special school districts may be formed) and is authorized to levy a school tax of from 3 to 7 mills. Poll-tax proceeds also revert to the county school fund. The governor, secretary of state, attorney-general, State treasurer, and State superintendent of public instruction form the State Board of Education. County boards consist of a county superintendent and three commissioners. There are twelve grades or years of instruction, eight months constituting a school year. The school age is six to twenty-one years. The constitution prescribes that "white and coloured children shall not be taught in the same school, but impartial provision shall be made for both". Statistics from latest biennial report (1906) of state superintendent show: total public schools, 2387; white 1720; coloured 667; enrolment: white 81,473, or 66 per cent of school population, coloured 48,992, or 52 per cent of school population; total expenditure for school year ending June, 1906, $1,020,674.95 for white schools, $200,752.27 for coloured schools. There are 2495 white and 794 coloured teachers. The report observes that while rapid progress has been accomplished along educational lines, a comparison with more advanced States shows that in Florida popular education of the masses is yet in its initial stage. "One of the greatest hindrances to educational progress at the present time is the scarcity, not only of professionally trained teachers, but teachers of any kind." This scarcity is ascribed to the inadequate remuneration teachers receive.

The system of higher education fostered by the State was reorganized by legislative act of 1905. Several existing institutions were abolished, and in their stead were established a State university for men, a State college for women, and a coloured normal and industrial school in which co-education prevails. These higher educational institutions receive generous support. State appropriations in 1907 amounted to $600,000, while annual subventions from the federal treasury aggregate about $60,000. The University of the State of Florida, Gainsville, includes a normal department, also a United States Agricultural Experiment Station, under a separate managerial staff. The university faculty numbers 15, Experiment Station staff 14, enrolment (1908) 103. The Florida Female College, Tallahassee, also includes a normal school, and has 22 professors and instructors and 240 students. The coloured normal school, Tallahassee, reports a faculty of 24 and an enrolment of 307. Institutions of higher education under denominational auspices: The John B. Stetson University (Baptist), Deland, incorporated 1889, affiliated with Chicago University, 1898. Its productive endowment funds amount to $225,000, while it has been the recipient of munificent gifts and legacies; enrolment (1908) 520, faculty 49. Rollins College (undenominational evangelical), Winter Park, incorporated 1885, possesses an endowment fund of $200,000, faculty 20, enrolment 148. The Southern College (Methodist), Southerland, founded 1902, faculty 19, enrolment 216. The Columbia College (Baptist), Lake City, was established in 1907; its faculty numbers 12, enrolment 143. St. Leo College (Catholic), St. Lee, incorporated 1889, is conducted by the Benedictine Fathers, faculty 9, enrolment 75. The Presbyterian College of Florida, Eustis, opened in 1905 and has at present 9 professors and 63 students. There is a business college located at Tampa and two -- Massey's and Draughon's -- at Jacksonville.

Catholic institutions, beneath college grade but maintaining a high standard of instruction, are the Academies of St. Joseph at St. Augustine, Jacksonville, and Loretto -- the latter a boys' preparatory school -- of the Holy Names at Tampa and Key West, and of the Sisters of Mercy at Pensacola. The number of children under Catholic care is 3704. Denominational institutions of high grade for the education of negroes are the Cookman Institute (Methodist), enrolment 487; the Edward Waters College (Methodist); and the Florida Baptist College, all situated at Jacksonville. In all the non-Catholic institutions co-education obtains.

RELIGION

Early Missionary Efforts

The permanent establishment of the Christian Religion in what is now the United States dates from the founding of St. Augustine in 1565. The previous fifty years exhibit a record of heroic though fruitless attempts to plant the cross on the soil of Florida. The solicitude manifested by the Spanish Crown for the conversion of the Indians was sincere and lasting, nor was there ever wanting a plentiful supply of zealous Spanish missionaries who brought to the spiritual subjugation of the Western World the same steadfastness of purpose and unflinching courage that achieved within so short a space the mighty conquests of Spanish arms. Priests and missionaries accompanied Ponce (1521), Allyón (1526), De Soto (1538), and De Luna (1559). In 1549 the Dominican Father Luis Cancer de Barbastro, honoured as Apostle of Central America and Protomartyr of Florida, in attempting to establish a mission, was slain by hostile Indians near Tampa Bay. Having secured Spanish supremacy by ruthlessly crushing out the French and planting a permanent colony at St. Augustine in 1565, Menendez with indomitable energy and zeal devoted himself to the evangelization of the Indians. Of the twenty-eight priests who embarked with him from Spain, four only seem to have reached Florida, of whom Martin Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales became first parish priest of St. Augustine, the first established parish in the United States. Pending the arrival of regular missionaries, Menendez appointed soldiers possessing the necessary qualifications as religious instructors to the Indians. The Jesuits were the first to enter the missionary field; three were sent by St. Francis Borgia in 1566 and ten in 1568; the few who survived the martyrdom of their brethren were recalled in 1572. In 1577 the Franciscans arrived. The good progress made by 1597 was severely checked by a general massacre of the missionaries instigated by a young chief chafing under merited reprimand. In 1609 several Indian chiefs sought baptism at St. Augustine, and the Florida missions entered the palmy period of their existence, which lasted till well past the middle of the century. In 1634 the Franciscan province of St. Helena, with mother-house at St. Augustine, contained 44 Indian missions, 35 missionaries, and 30,000 Catholic Indians. By 1674 evidences of decline begin to appear. Bishop Calderon found his episcopal jurisdiction questioned by the friars, and although he confirmed many Indians, he complained of the universal ignorance of Christian doctrine. The arbitrary exactions of successive governors provoked resentment and rebellion amongst the Christian Indians, while the English foe on the northern border menaced their very existence. In 1704 the blow fell. Burning, plunder, carnage, and enslavement is the record of Moore's raid amongst the Apalachee missions. Efforts at re-establishment partially succeeded, there being in 1720 six towns of Catholic Indians and several missions, but owing to the ravages of persistent conflict between the Spanish and English colonies, these in 1763 had languished to four missions with 136 souls. The cession to England in 1763 resulted, not merely in the final extinction of the missions, but in the complete obliteration of Florida's ancient Catholicity.

Formation of Dioceses

St. Augustine began its existence as a regularly constituted parish of the Diocese of Santiago de Cuba. Its church records, dating from 1594, are preserved in the archives of the present cathedral. The first recorded episcopal visitation was made by Bishop Cabeza de Altamirano in 1606. In 1674 Bishop Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderon visited the Floridian portion of his diocese; he conferred minor orders on seven candidates, and during an itinerary of eight months, extending to the Carolinian confines, confirmed 13,152 persons, founded many mission churches, and liberally supplied others. The permanent residence of Bishops-Auxiliary Resino (1709-10), Tejada (1735-45), and Ponce y Carasco (1751-55) at St. Augustine, shows that despite the waning condition of the colony and missions at this period, the Church in Florida was not deprived of episcopal care and vigilance. Bishop Morell of Santiago, exiled from his see during the English occupation of Havana (1662-63), remained four months at St. Augustine, confirming 639 persons. When Florida in 1763 passed under English rule, freedom of worship was guaranteed, but the illiberal interpretation of officials resulted in the general exodus of Catholics, so that by 1765, the bi-centenary year of the Church in Florida, a few defaced church buildings presented the only evidence of its former Catholicity. Five hundred survivors of the New Smyrna colony of 1400 Catholics, natives of Mediterranean lands, settled at St. Augustine in 1776 and preserved the Faith alive through a trying epoch. In 1787 Florida became subject to the newly constituted See of St. Christopher of Havana, and the following year Bishop Cyril de Barcelona found the church at St. Augustine progressing satisfactorily under the care of Fathers Hassett and O'Reilly, who had arrived on the retrocession of Florida to Spain in 1783.

In 1793 Pius VI established the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas, appointing the Right Rev. Luis Peñalver y Cardenas, with residence at New Orleans, as first bishop. After Bishop Peñalver's promotion to the Archbishopric of Guatemala in 1801, no successor having been appointed, Louisiana, which was annexed to the United States in 1803, came under the jurisdiction of Bishop Carroll of Baltimore in 1806, the bishops of Havana reassuming authority over Florida until the appointment of the Rev. Michael Portier in 1825 to the new Vicariate of Alabama and Florida. Bishop Portier undertook single-handed the work of his vast vicariate, not having a single priest, until at his request Bishop England of Charleston sent Father Edward Mayne to St. Augustine in 1828. In 1850 the See of Savannah was created and included that part of Florida which lies east of the Apalachicola River; this was constituted a separate vicariate in 1857 under the Right Rev. Augustin Verot as vicar apostolic and erected into the Diocese of St. Augustine in 1870, with Bishop Verot, who had occupied the See of Savannah since 1861, as first bishop. Bishop Verot's unwearied activity and zeal in promoting religion and education soon bore fruit; schools were opened by the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy in 1858, but the outbreak of the Civil War frustrated all hopes of success. In 1866 the Sisters of St. Joseph were introduced from France, and despite the most adverse conditions, they had several flourishing schools and academies in operation before many years. The era of progress inaugurated by Bishop Verot continued under the administration of Bishop John Moore (1877-1901), whose successor, the Right Rev. William John Kenny, was consecrated by Cardinal Gibbons 18 May, 1902, in the historic cathedral of St. Augustine. The Catholic population of the State, including 1750 coloured Catholics, is (1908) about 30,000. The Diocese of St. Augustine, wholly included within the State, contains about 25,000 Catholics; there are 49 priests with 40 churches and several missions, and 2897 young people under the care of religious teaching orders. That portion of the State situated west of the Apalachicola River forms part of the Diocese of Mobile since 1829; the Catholic population is about 5000, there are five churches with resident priests and 6 Catholic schools with 807 pupils; Pensacola, founded 1696, is the Catholic centre.

Other Religious Denominations

The Methodist Church South has the largest membership. The Florida Conference was set off from the Georgia Conference in 1844. The session of December, 1907, reported 341 churches and 155 ministers; estimated membership 40,000. The Baptists report 35,021 total membership, 548 churches, 370 ministers. The Episcopalian denomination, comprising the Diocese of Florida and the Missionary District of Southern Florida, organized 1892, has 7737 communicants, about 12,000 total baptized, and 66 ministers. These three denominations display considerable activity and efficiency in missionary and educational work. The Baptist State Mission board supports 40 missionaries; while the Episcopalians, with but 10 self-supporting parishes, maintain nearly 200 missions, including 14 churches for negroes and 10 parish schools with 540 pupils. In 1894 the Episcopal Church started mission work amongst the Seminole Indians of the Everglades, who number about 300, but as the chiefs who are arbiters of all individual rights have hitherto held aloof, the result has been very discouraging. Presbyterians North and South number 6500 with 95 ministers, Congregationalists 2500; other denominations represented in the State are: Adventists, Christians, Lutherans, Unitarians, Campbellites, Jews, Christian Scientists, and Mormons. Reliable religious statistics of the coloured people are difficult to obtain owing to multiplicity of organizations and mobility of religious temperament. Five distinct branches of Methodists report 635 preachers, 400 churches, and 7470 members. Baptist organizations approximate the Methodists in strength, while the coloured membership of other denominations is very small.

Florida Indians

The early explorers found the Indians distributed over the entire peninsula. To the north-west the populous tribes of the Apalachee inhabited the country watered by the Suwannee and Apalachicola Rivers; the Timuquanans occupied the centre of the peninsula, with numerous settlements along the St. John's; the Calusa in the south-west ranged from Cape Sable to Tampa Bay; on Biscayne Bay the small settlement of Tegestas seems to have come originally from the Bahamas and contracted kinship with the Calusa; along the Indian River south of Cape Canaveral lived the Ays, also comparatively few in numbers and mentioned only in connexion with early missionary labour, probably having become absorbed in the Timuquanans under the unifying influence of Christianity. Sufficient data for an approximate estimate of population are wanting; probably the entire population of the tribes mentioned exceeded 20,000 but not 40,000. These tribes pertained ethnologically and linguistically to the great Muskhogean or Creek family, though some philologists consider the Timuquanan language, which "represents the acme of polysynthesis", a distinct linguistic stock.

The Timuquanans lived in great communal houses, fortified their villages, practised agriculture to some extent and a few rude industries. They are described as being of fine physique, intelligent, courageous, generally monogamous, very fond of ceremonial, and much addicted to human sacrifice and superstition. Their settlement near St. Augustine furnished the first Indian converts, in all probability prior to the advent of the Franciscan missionaries in 1577. In 1602 Governor Canço estimated the number of Christians amongst them at 1200. A catechism in the Timuquanan language by Father Francisco Pareja was printed in Mexico in 1612 and a grammar in 1614 (reprinted at Paris, 1886), besides other works. These were the first books printed in any of our Indian tongues. The baptism of twelve Timuquanan chiefs in 1609 at St. Augustine cleared the way for the conversion of the whole nation to Christianity. English and hostile Indian raids diminished their numbers (1685-1735), and by 1763 they had all but disappeared. The Apalachee Indians, closer related to the Creeks, resembled the neighbouring Timuquanans in general disposition and manner of life. It is not mentioned that they practised human sacrifice, and in other respects, especially after their conversion to Christianity, they exhibited a superiority of character over the other Floridian tribes, being docile and tractable to religious teaching and training. Towards Narvaez (1528) and De Soto (1539) they assumed a surprisingly hostile demeanour, in view of the ready response accorded subsequently to the efforts of the missionaries. In 1595 Father Pedro de Chozas penetrated to Ocute in the Apalachee country, and his mission proved so fruitful that the Indians appealed in 1607 for additional missionaries, and by 1640 the whole tribe was Catholic. The Apalachee country was invaded and devastated by hostile Indians and English under Moore in 1704. Of thirteen flourishing towns but one escaped destruction, missionaries were tortured and slain, 1000 Christians were carried off to be sold as slaves, and of 7000 Christian Apalachee only 400 escaped. One of the last items recorded of the tribe is the testimony of the French writer Penicaut to the edifying piety with which a fugitive band that had settled near Mobile adhered to the practices of religion.

The Calusa or Carlos Indians, with whom Menendez in 1566 endeavoured to establish friendship and alliance, in order to pave the way to their conversion, showed a persistent spirit of hostility to Christian teaching. They were cruel, crafty, though recklessly brave, polygamous, and inveterately addicted to human sacrifice. The Jesuit Father Rogel laboured fruitlessly amongst them (1567-8). The Franciscans in 1697 were even less successful. In 1743 the Jesuit Fathers Monaco and Alana, who obtained some little success, described them as cruel, lewd, and rapacious. The remnant of the tribe moved to the western reservations about 1835. The Seminoles, also allied to the Creek stock, came into Florida about 1750; very few of them became Christians, as missionary activity ceased on the English occupation in 1763. Their refusal to withdraw to reservations resulted in the Indian War of 1835-42. On the conclusion of the war 2000 were conveyed to Indian Territory. About 300, defying every effort of the United States, retired to the almost inaccessible recesses of the Everglades which their descendants occupy to this day.

Legislation Directly Affecting Religion

Freedom of worship and liberty of conscience are by constitutional provision guaranteed in perpetuity to the citizens of Florida. The Declaration of Rights ordains (Sec. 5): "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be considered incompetent as a witness on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to justify licentiousness or practices subversive of, or inconsistent with, the peace or moral safety of the state or society." The constitution further provides (Sec. 6) that no preference be given by law to any church or religious sect, and forbids the subvention of public funds in aid of any religious denomination or sectarian institution. Wilful interruption or disturbance of "any assembly of people met for the worship of God" is, through legislative enactment (Gen. Stat. 3547), a penal offence. The religious observance of Sunday is, by various prohibitory statutes, indirectly enjoined. All business pursuits "either by manual labor or with animal or mechanical power, except the same be work of necessity" are forbidden on Sunday. Selling goods in open store, the employment of servants, except in ordinary household duty and necessary or charitable work, and the discharge of fire-arms on Sunday are punishable offences. The printing and sale of newspapers is specially exempted. Service and execution of writs on Sunday (suitable provisions obviating possible abuse of the statute being annexed) are declared null and void. By legislative act of 1905, certain games and sports, expressly baseball, football, bowling, and horse-racing, are prohibited on Sunday. All electors upon registering must testify under oath in form prescribed, that they are legally qualified to vote, All State officials, on assuming office, are required to take an oath of loyalty to the Federal and State constitutions and governments, of legal qualification for office, and of fidelity to duty. Testimony in the various courts is to be given under oath. The officials authorized to administer oaths are designated by statute. The issuance of search-warrants is forbidden, except for probable cause, with specification of names and places and supported by oath (Dec. of Rights, 22); also all offences cognizable in Criminal Courts of Record are to be prosecuted upon information under oath (Constit., V, 28). By statutory provision (1731) a declaration in judicial form may in all cases be substituted for an oath.

The days defined as legal holidays include Sunday, New Year's Day, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. The use of prayer in the Legislature is not sanctioned by legal provision, although it is customary to appoint a chaplain and begin each session with prayer.

Against open profanity and blasphemy it is enacted (Gen. Stat. 3542) that "whoever having arrived at the age of discretion profanely curses or swears in any public street shall be punished by fine not exceeding five dollars". Heavier penalties are decreed against the use of indecent or obscene language, and liberal statutory provision exists for the safeguarding of public morality.

Churches, religious communities, charitable institutions, and cemetery associations may become incorporated by complying with the provisions of the general statutes regulating non-profitable corporations. Churches, church lots, parsonages, and all burying-grounds not held for speculative purposes are declared exempt from taxation; property of literary, educational, and charitable institutions actually occupied and used solely for the specific purposes indicated is likewise exempt. Ministers of the Gospel are by statute exempt from jury duty and military service. All regularly ordained ministers in communion with some church are authorized to solemnize the rites of the matrimonial contract under the regulations prescribed by law. Marriages of whites with negroes or persons of negro descent to the fourth generation (one-eighth negro blood) are forbidden. The prohibited degrees, besides the direct line of consanguinity, include only brother and sister, uncle and niece, nephew and aunt. Continuous absence of either spouse over sea or continual absence for three years following voluntary desertion, with presumption of demise, gives the other spouse legal right to remarry. The statutory grounds for divorce are: consanguinity within the degrees prohibited by law, natural impotence, adultery not connived at or condoned, extreme cruelty, habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper, habitual intemperance, wilful, obstinate, and continued desertion for one year, divorce procured by defendant in another state or country, and bigamy. To file a bill of divorce two years' residence (the cause of adultery excepted) is conditional. Separation a mensa et toro is not legally recognized; every divorce is a vinculo. Special personal and local divorce legislation is unconstitutional.

State aid is prohibited denominational schools. The law directs every teacher "to labor faithfully and earnestly for the advancement of the pupils in their studies, deportment and morals, and to embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and by example, the principles of truth, honesty and patriotism, and the practice of every Christian virtue". The benevolent institutions maintained by the State include an insane asylum situated at Chattahoochee, a school for the blind, deaf, and dumb at St. Augustine, and a reform school for youthful delinquents at Marianna. A Confederate Veterans' Home at Jacksonville receives an annual appropriation. Each county cares for its indigent and needy infirm. While financial support is denied, ample provision for incorporation is afforded religious charitable institutions. The constitution orders the establishment and maintenance of a State prison, which is not at present permanently located. Convicts are leased through contractors to turpentine and phosphate operators. Over these convicts the State retains surveillance through supervisors appointed by the governor. The law provides also for the appointment and remuneration of a chaplain for state convicts. On 1 January, 1906, there were 1234 state prisoners, 90 per cent of whom were coloured, distributed through 33 convict camps.

The constitution gives to each county the privilege of local option to permit or prohibit the sale of liquor. In a majority of the counties prohibition prevails. Where permitted, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor are regulated by State, county, and municipal licence laws. Conveyance of real and personal property by will is restricted only by conditions of soundness of mind and age requirement of twenty-one years on part of the testator. There appear to be no Supreme Court decisions referring to bequests for Masses and charitable purposes or to the seal of confession, but the attitude of both bench and bar in the State has in these matters been ever above suspicion of anti-Catholic bias or partiality.

FAIRBANKS, History of Florida (Jacksonville, 1901); IDEM, History of St. Augustine (New York, 1858); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1857); IDEM, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886-92); GATSCHET, A Migration of the Creek Indians (Philadelphia, 1884); IDEM, The Timuqua Language in Proceedings of Am. Phil. Soc. (Philadelphia), XVI (1877), 627; XVII (1878), 490; XVIII (1880), 465; LOWERY, The Spanish Settlements (New York, 1901-05); IRVING, The Conquest of Florida (Philadelphia, 1835); BRINTON, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula (Philadelphia, 1859); ROMANS, A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida (New York, 1775); BREVARD, History and Government of Florida (New York, 1904); DEWHURST, The History of St. Augustine (New York, 1881); CARROLL, Historical Collections of South Carolina (New York, 1836); STEPHENS, History of Georgia (New York, 1847); WALLACE, Carpet Bag Rule in Florida (Jacksonville, 1888); YOCUM, Civil Government in Florida (Deland, 1905); WILLIAMS, Florida (New York, 1837); FISKE, The Discovery of America (Boston, 1892); General Statutes of the State of Florida (St. Augustine, 1906); WILLOUGHBY, Across the Everglades (Philadelphia, 1906); RUIDIAZ, La Florida (Madrid, 1893); GARCÍA, Dos antiguas relaciones de la Florida (Mexico, 1902); TERNAUX-COMPANS, Recueil de pièces sur la Floride (Paris, 1841); SPRAGUE, The Origin, Progress and Conclusion of the Florida War (New York, 1848); Extant Records of the Parish of St. Augustine from the year 1594, preserved in the Cathedral Archives at St. Augustine.

JAMES VEALE.

Florilegia

Florilegia (Lat., florilegium, an anthology) are systematic collections of excerpts (more or less copious) from the works of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers of the early period, compiled with a view to serve dogmatic or ethical purposes. These encyclopedic compilations — Patristic anthologies as they may be fitly styled — are a characteristic product of the later Byzantine theological school, and form a very considerable branch of the extensive literature of the Greek Catenæ

Two classes of Christian florilegia may here be distinguished: the dogmatic and the ascetical, or ethical. The dogmatic florilegia are collections of Patristic citations designed to exhibit the continuous and connected teaching of the Fathers on some specific doctrine. The first impulse to compilations of this nature was given by the Christological controversies that convulsed the Eastern Church during the fifth century, when, both at the gatherings of the great church councils and in private circles, the practical need had made itself definitely felt, of having at hand, for ready reference, a convenient summary of what the Fathers and most approved theologians had held and taught concerning certain controversial doctrines. Such a summary, setting forth the views of Nestorius and the mind of the orthodox Fathers, was first laid before the Council of Ephesus, in 431, by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Summaries of dogmatic utterances were used also at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and at the Fifth General Council in 533. But it was not until the seventh century that the dogmatic florilegia assumed a fully developed and definite form. At the Sixth General Council, in 680, two of these collections played a very prominent rôle, one, constructed by Macarius, the Patriarch of Antioch, in favour of the Monothelites, and the other, a counter collection presented by the legates of Pope Agatho. During the Iconoclastic controversy similar collections were produced. Mention is made of one on the cult of relics and images which the Synod of Jerusalem sent to John, Bishop of Gothia, about 760.

The oldest extant, and at the same time most extensive and valuable, of these dogmatic compilations, is the "Antiquorum Patrum doctrino de Verbi incarnatione" (first completely edited from a manuscript in the Vatican Library by F. Diekamp, "Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts", Münster, 1907). It is extraordinarily rich in fragments from writings of the Patristic period which are now lost. Of the 977 citations (mainly of a Christological character) which it contains, 751 alone are from the works of the Fathers, representing 93 ecclesiastical writers. Diekamp ascribes the work to the period between the years 685 and 726, and, though nothing can be said with certainty concerning the author, a slight probability points to Anastasius of Sinai as its compiler. A florilegium somewhat similar to the "Doctrina" is mentioned by Photius in his Bibliotheca (Migne, P.G., CLIII, 1089-92), but not a trace of it survives to-day. Another compilation of this kind, covering the whole province of theology in five books, is ascribed to the monk Doxopatres, identical perhaps with the eleventh-century John Doxopatres; the first two books, treating of Adam and Christ, are all that remain. A number of other dogmatic florilegia are still extant in manuscript form, but they have never been edited, nor even critically examined. The authors of most of them are unknown.

The ascetical florilegia are collections of moral sentences and excerpts drawn partly from the Scriptures and partly from the Fathers, on such topics as virtues and vices, duties and exercises of a religious life, faith, discipline, etc. They are not so numerous as the dogmatic florilegia, and apparently were all compiled before the tenth century. Their material, as a rule, is gathered indiscriminately from various authorities, though in some instances it is furnished by only a single writer, a distinct preference being then shown for the works of the more illustrious Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. John Chrysostom. An extensive Christian florilegium of the sixth century, entitled tà ‘ierá (Sacred Things), is probably the earliest of these anthologies. The work consisted originally of three books, the first of which treated of God, the second of man, and the third of the virtues and vices. In the course of time it underwent contraction into one book, its material was recast and arranged in alphabetical order under títloi, or sections, its name changed to tà ‘ierà parállela, "Sacra Parallela" (from the fact that in the third book a virtue and a vice were regularly contrasted or paralleled), and its authorship widely ascribed to St. John Damascene. That the Damascene was really the compiler of the "Sacra Parallela", and that he used as his principal source the "Capita theologica", a florilegium of Maximus Confessor, has been maintained recently with much learning and skill (against Loofs, Wendland, and Cohn) by K. Holl ("Fragmenta Vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus den Sacra Parallela", Leipzig, 1899). Though tà ‘ierá is no longer extant in its original form, considerable portions of the first two books have come down to us in manuscript, and parts of the third are preserved in "The Bee" (Melissa) of Antonius, a Greek monk of the eleventh century (Migne, P. G., CXXXVI, 765-1124). Of the "Sacra Parallela" there are several recensions, one of which is given in Migne (P. G., XCV, 1040-1586; XCVI, 9-544). Other extant ascetical florilegia still remain unedited. As in the case of the dogmatic florilegia, most of them are anonymous.

The character and value of the Christian florilegia cannot be definitely or finally estimated until the various manuscripts that now lie scattered through the libraries of Europe and the East have received a more thorough and critical investigation than has hitherto been accorded to them. Questions as to date, authorship, sources, structure, relative dependence, etc., have as yet been treated only in a general way. As the characteristic production of an age of theological decadence, these collections of ancient Christian fragments have no high literary value; they are, however, of great importance to us, because they frequently embody the only remains of important Patristic writings. The difficulties connected with their uses arise chiefly from the unsatisfactory condition of the text, the uncertainty concerning the names to which the fragments have been ascribed, and the want of sufficient data to determine the dates. Only a small part of the extant material has been printed.

     The best general account of the florilegia will be found in Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 206-210, 216-218, where there is also bibliography and a full list of manuscripts. — Wachsmuth, Studien zu des griechischen Florilegien (Berlin, 1882).
     For the dogmatic florilegia: Sherman, Die Geschichte der dogmatischen Florilegien vom 5. bis 8. Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1904). For the Sacra Parallela, Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz (Leipzig, 1887); Idem, Studien über die Johannes von Damasko zugeschriebenen Parallelen (Halle, 1882); and the above-mentioned works by Diekamp and Holl. Cf. Shahan in Catholic Univ. Bulletin (Washington), V, 94 sq.

Thomas Oestreich

Florus

A deacon of Lyons, ecclesiastical writer in the first half of the ninth century. We have no information regarding the place of birth, the parents, or the youth of this distinguished theologian; but it is probable that he came from the neighbourhood of Lyons, not however from Spain, as some scholars have asserted. A letter to Bishop Bartholomew of Narbonne, written between 827 and 830 and signed by Florus as well as by Archbishop Agobard and the priest Hildigisus, furnishes us with the first positive information we possess of his history ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epp. V, 206 sqq.). He was then a deacon of the church of Lyons, which office he continued to hold throughout his life. From the fact that at this time he already enjoyed a reputation as a theologian, we may conclude that he was born certainly before the end of the eighth century. That he was then known (827) even outside the boundaries of the church of Lyons is testified by the poetic epistle written about the same time by the youthful Walahfrid Strabo to Archbishop Agobard, in which he speaks of Florus, with an allusion to his name, as a flower the fragrance of which had spread even to the banks of the Rhine ("Versus Strabi Walahfridi", viii, v, 17-24, ed. Dummler "Poetae Carol. aevi", II, 357, in "Mon. Germ. Hist.").

Until about the middle of the ninth century, the deacon of Lyons followed an active literary career he was theologian, canonist, liturgist, and poet. He was considered one of the foremost authorities on theologioal questions among the clergy of the Frankish kingdom; and, in consequence, his opinion was often sought in important ecclesiastical rnatters. When, after the deposition of Archbishop Agobard of Lyons by the Synod of Diedenhofen (835), Bishop Modoin of Autun summoned before the civil power certain ecclesiastics of the church of Lyons, Florus, in his work "De iniusta vexatione ecclesiae Lugdunensis", took issue with Modoin and defended ecclesiastical freedom. Other canonical writings of Florus are his "Capitula ex lege et canone collecta" and his treatise on the election of bishops, "De electionibus episcoporum". Another of his works, "Querela de divisione Imperii" a lament over the dissensions of the realm, was written by Florus when the kingdom was undergoing severe political disturbance occasioned by the strife between Louis the Pious and Lothair. His liturgical writing are: "De expositione Missae", and three treatises against Amalarius ("Opuscula contra Amalarium"). In these latter works the anthor inveighs against the famous Amalarius of Metz, who came to Lyons, in 835, and wished to introduce changes in the liturgy which were disapproved of by Florus. Later, Florus took part in the conflict concerning predestination, which had been stirred up by the monk Gottschalk. Shortly after the Synod of Quiersy, in the year 849, he wrote on this subject, "De praedestinatione" and laid down the doctrine of a twofold predestination, to salvation and to damnation, maintaining at the same time the doctrine of the free will of man. When John Scotus Eriugena attacked this opinion, Florus, commissioned by the church of Lyons, wrote in 852 his work "Liber adversus Johannem Scotum" . He is also the author of commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul. His next work was the completion of the Martyrology of Bede, to which he made additions for the various days.The chief sources on which he relied in enlarging the work are a manuscript from St-Pierre in Macon, and two manuscripts of Echternach and Toul, which may all be found in the National Library at Paris (MSS. lat. 5254, 10018 and 10158). On later revisions of the martyrology, these additions have been made use of. Finally, the deacon of Lyons has left a number of poems. After the year 852, no further information definite as to time has come down to us regarding Florus; so that his death may be said, with probable exactitude, to have occurred about the year 860.

J.P. KIRSCH

John Floyd

English missionary, wrote under the names Flud, Daniel à Jesu, Hermannus Loemelius, George White, Annosus Fidelis Verimentanus, and under the initials J. R. Some of his works have been erroneously attributed to Robert Jennison, S. J. He was b. in Cambridgeshire in 1572; d. at St.-Omer, 16 Sept. 1649. he was educated at the Jesuit College at Eu, then at the English College at Reims (17 March, 1588) and finally the English College in Rome (1590), where he entered the Society of Jesus, 1 Nov., 1592. Nothing is known about his ordination, but in 1606 he was a missionary priest in England. On 6 April in that year he was arrested at Worcester while attempting to visit Ven. Edward Oldcorne who was to suffer martyrdom next day. Having been imprisoned for twelve months he, with forty-six other priests, was banished for life. He then spent four years teaching at St.-Omer, though Foley (Records, IV, 238), is mistaken in supposing he published any controversial works at that time. On 31 July, 1609, he was professed of the four vows, and soon after returned to England, where he laboured on the mission for many years, being often captured, but effecting his escape by buying off the pursuivants. In 1612 he published his first work, "The Overthrow of the Protestant Pulpit Babels", in which he replied to Crawshaw's "Jesuit Gospel". He was in return answered by Sir Edward Hoby in his "A Counter-Snarl for Ishmael Rabshakeh a Cycropedian Lycaonite, being an answer to a Roman Catholic who writes himself J. R." Father Floyd countered in 1614 with "Purgatorie's Triumph over Hell, maugre the barking of Cerberus in Syr Edward Hobyes Counter Snarle". This controversy closed with Hoby's rejoinder, "A Curry-comb for a Cox-combe", published in 1615. Father Floyd next turned his attention to Marc' Antonio de Dominis, formerly Archbishop of Spilatro, who had apostacized and become Protestant dean of Windsor. Against him Father Floyd wrote four works: "Synopsis Apostasiæ Marci Antonii de Dominis, olim Archepiscopi Spalatensis, nunc Apostatæ, ex ipsiusmet libro delineata" (Antwerp 1617). It was translated into English by Father Henry Hawkins, S.J., in 1617, and again by Dr. John Fletcher in 1828. "Hypocrisis Marci Antonii de Dominis detecta sui censura in ejus libros de Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ" (Antwerp, 1620); "Censura ex Librorum X de Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ Marci Antonii de Dominis" (Antwerp 1620, Cologne, 1621); "Monarchiæ Ecclesiasticæ ex scriptus M. Antonii de Dominis Archepiscopi Spalatensis Demonstratio, duobus libri comprehensa" (Cologne, 1622). All four works appeared under the signature Fidelis Annosus Verimentanus.

In 1620, Floyd published "God and the King", a translation of a work on loyalty, and in the following year a translation of Augustine's "Meditations". In 1623 he was living in Fleet Street (Gee's "Foot out of the Snare") and in the same year he wrote "A word of comfort or a discourse concerning the late lamentable accident of a fall of a room at a Catholic Sermon in the Blackfriars of London, wherewith about four-score persons were oppressed"; also a translation of Molina "On the Sacrifice of the Mass". In 1625 he published "An Answer to Francis White's reply to Mr. Fischer's answer to the Nine Articles offered by King James to Father John Fischer". In 1629 Fr. Floyd played a leading part in the controversy between Jesuits and seculars on the desirability of having a bishop resident in England. Bishop Richard Smith, whose presence was regarded by some as a source of persecution, had in fact left England for Paris and was never able to return, but the situation gave rise to acrimonious discussion. Father Floyd's works were "An Apology for the Holy See Apostolick's Proceedings for the Government of the Catholicks of England during the time of persecution" (Rouen, 1630; enlarged Lat. ed., Cologne, 1631): and "Hermanni Loemelii Antverpiensis Spongia qua diluuntur Calumniæ nomine Facultatis Parisiensis impositæ libro qui inscribitur Apologia" etc. (St-Omer, 1631). Both of these works were condemned by the Sorbonne, and in 1633 Urban VIII stopped the controversy and suppressed all writings on the subject. His other works are "A Paire of Spectacles for Sir Humphrey Linde to see his way withal" (1631); "The Church Conquerant over Human Wit" (1638); "The Totall Sum" (1638); "The Imposture of Puritan Piety" (1638). He left two unpublished works: "Vita Brunehildis Francorum Reginæ" and a "Treatise on Holy Pictures". Father Floyd spent the last years of his life teaching philosophy and theology at St-Omer's.

Dodd, Church History (Brussels, 1739-1742), III, 105; de Backer, Bibl des escrevains de la c. de J. (1869), I, 1888; Knox, Douay Diaries (London, 1878); Foley, Records Eng. Prov. S.J. (London, 1878, 1880, 1882), IV, 238; where he mistakes a date in Douary Diaries and states that Floyd was sent to Rome in 1593 instead of 1590; VI, 185; VII, 268; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v., who repeats Foley's mistake.

EDWIN BURTON

Fogaras

ARCHDIOCESE OF FOGARAS (FOGARASIENSIS).

Archdiocese in Hungary, of the Greek-Rumanian Rite. It has three suffragan sees, Grosswardein (Nagy Várad), Lugos, and Szamos Ujvár (Armenopolis). Since 1733 the residence has been at Balászfalva (Blaj, Blasendorf). The Diocese of Fogaras was erected in 1721, suffragan to the Primate of Hungary (the Latin Archbishop of Gran). In 1853 Pius IX re-established the archbishopric of Alba Julia (Weissenburg, Karlsburg), an ancient metropolitan title, and united it with the See of Fogaras. Since that time the head of the Greek-Rumanian Church bears the title of Archbishop of Fogaras and Alba Julia. Since 1697 (Synod of Karlsburg), when these Rumanians returned to Catholic unity, there have been eleven Catholic titulars of Alba Julia or Fogaras.

The city of Fogaras (6000 inhabitants) (in German Fagreschmarkt) is built on the Aluta. Its fortress played an important part in all the wars with the Turks. In 1849 the Hungarians were defeated here by the Russians. Balászfalva, the residence of the archbishop, has also about 6000 inhabitants. Here, in 1848, the Rumanians protested against political union with Hungary. The archdiocese numbers 440,000 Rumanian Catholics. There are 720 priests, nearly all married, 705 parishes, as many churches, and several chapels. The preparatory and theological seminaries are at Blaj, also a college and a printing establishment, where the weekly journal "Unirea" has been published since 1890. The diocesan schools for boys and girls are attended by 60,000 pupils. There are 3 gymnasia for boys or girls, and several convents.

S. VAILHÉ

Foggia

DIOCESE OF FOGGIA (FODIANA).

Diocese in the province of the same name in Apulia (Southern Italy). The city is in the heart of a rich agricultural centre, in a vast plain between the rivers Cervaro and Celone. It grew up about the church of the Madonna dei Sette Veli, today the cathedral, built in 1072 by Robert Guiscard. Foggia is so named from the swampy character of the territory, foya or fogia signifying "marsh". It later became the capital of the district known as the Capitanata. Frederick II built an imperial fortress there. In 1254 Manfred defeated there Pope Innocent IV, though in the same place, in 1266, he himself submitted to Charles of Anjou, who in 1268 destroyed the city for taking part with the unfortunate Conradino. In 1781 a severe earthquake greatly damaged the city. Foggia formed part of the Diocese of Troia until 1855, when it was made a diocese by Pius IX, comprising territory of the Dioceses of Siponto and Manfredonia. The first bishop was Bernardino M. Frascolla. Situated so near the ancient city of Arpi, which had a bishop, Pardus, as early as 314, the Bishops of Troia may be considered as successors of the Bishops of Arpi. In 1907 Foggia was united aeque principaliter with Troia. It is immediately subject to the Holy See. The cathedral, a remarkable architectural monument, has been often restored and enlarged; it contains the mausoleum of the Princes of Durazzo. Worthy of mention is the church of the Crosses, which is approached through a series of chapels. Foggia has 9 parishes, 81,000 inhabitants, 2 male and 8 female educational institutions, 3 religious houses of men, and 9 of women.

U. BENIGNI

St. Foillan

(Irish FAELAN, FAOLAN, FOELAN, FOALAN.)

Represented in iconography with a crown at his feet to show that he despised the honours of the world. He was born in Ireland early in the seventh century and was the brother of Saints Ultan and Fursey, the latter a famous missionary who preached the Faith to the Irish, the Anglo-saxons, and the Franks. Foillan, probably in company with Ultan, went with his brother Fursey when the latter, fleeing from his country then devastated by foreign invaders, retired to a lonely islands. Fursey soon went among the Anglo Saxons and built a monastery at Burgh Castle (Cnoberesburg) in Suffolk, between 634 and 650.

Seized again with the desire for solitude, Fursey left the monastery in the care of Foillan, who remained at the head of the community, and had the happiness of once more seeing his brother Fursey, who, having since gone to the kingdom of the Franks, came to visit him about 650. Soon a diastrous war broke out between Penda, the Mercian chief, and Ana, King of the Eastern Anglo-Saxons. Ana having been put to flight, the monastery of Cnoberesburg fell into the hand of the enemies. It was pillaged, and its superior, Foillan, barely escaped death. He hastened to ransom the captive monks, recovered the relics, put the holy books and objects of veneration on board ship, and departed for the country of the Franks, where his brother Fursey was buried. He and his companions were well received at Péronne by Erconwald, Mayor of the Palace. But soon, for some unknown reason, Foillan and his companions left Péronne and went to Nivelles, a monastery founded by St. Ita and St. Gertrude, wife and daughter of Duke Pepin I.

Foillan, like so many other Irishmen who went to the Continent in the seventh century, was invested with episcopal dignity, having doubtless been a monastic bishop at Cnoberesburg. He was therefore of great assistance in the organization of worship, and the holy books and relics which he brought were great; treasures for St. Ita and St. Gertrude. As the monastery of Nivelles was under Irish discipline, the companions of Foillan were well received and lived side by side with the holy women, occupying themselves with the details of worship under the general direction of the abbess. Through the liberality of Ita, Foillan was enabled to build a monastery at Fosses, not far from Nivelles, in the province of Namur. After the death of Ita in 652, Foillan came one day to Nivelles and sang Mass, on the eve of the feast of St-Quentin. The ceremony being finished, he resumed his journey, doubtless undertaken in the interests of his monastery. In the forest of Senege the saint and his companions fell into a trap set by bandits who inhabited that solitude. They were slain, stripped, and their bodies concealed. But they were recovered by St. Gertrude, and when she had taken some relics of the saint his body was borne to the monastery of Fosses, where it was buried about 655.

Foillan was one of the numerous Irish travellers who in the course of the seventh century evangalized Belgium, bringing thither the liturgy and sacred vessels, founding prosperous monasteries, and sharing considerably in the propagation of the Faith in these countries. Owing to the friendship which united him with Erconwald, Mayor of the Palace, and with the members of Pepin's famity, Foillan played a preponderant part in Frankish ecclesiastical history, as shown by his share in the direction of Nivelles and by the foundation of the monastery of Fosses. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should be honoured and venerated both at Nivelles and Fosses and to find at Le Roeulx (Belgium) a monastery bearing his name. As late as the twelfth century the veneration in which he was held inspired Philippe Le Harvengt, Abbot of Bonne-Esperance, to compose a lengthy biography of the saint. He is the patron of Fosses, near Charieroi. In the Diocese of Namur his feast is celebrated on 31 October, in the Dioceses of Mechlin and Tournai on 5 November.

L. VAN DER ESSEN

Teofilo Folengo

An Italian poet, better known by his pseudonyrn MERLIN COCCALO or COCAI; b. at Mantua in 1496; d. at the monastery of Santa Croce in Campese in 1544. He received some training at the University of Bologna and then entered Benedictine Order. In 1524 or 1525, either through enmity for his abbot, Ignazio Squarcialupi, or became of a temporary impatience of monastic life, he divested himself of the habit and acted for a while as a private tutor. Then repenting of the step taken, he made overtures to his order for his readmission, which was granted in 1534, only after he had done penance and had cleared himself of certain suspicions of heterodoxy. Three years later he became prior of the monastery of Santa Maria delle Ciambre in Sicily. He returned to the mainland in 1543. Folengo's fame rests chiefly on his "Baldus" which was first printed in 1517 on seventeen books or Macaronicae, and was reprinted in 1521 with eight additional books. The work, epic in its tendencies, belongs to the category of burlesque compositions in macaronic verse (that is in a jargon, made up of Latin words mingled with Italian words, given a Latin aspect), which had already been inaugurated by Tifi Odasi in his "Macaronea", and which, in a measure, marks a continuance of the goliardic traditions of the Middle Ages. For the first edition of the "Baldus", Folengo had derived burlesque traits and types of personages from the chivalrous romances of Boiardo and Pulci. His second edition reveals, in the greater amplitude of its action, in the improved manner of setting forth comic types, and in its generally better developed feeling for art, the author's reading of the "Orlando Furioso" of Ariosto. However, the poem is a parody not only of the Italian chivalrous romance but also of the Virgilian epic, and, in its latter part, of Dante's "Divine Comedy" as well. Furthermore, it is grossly satirical in its treatment of the clergy and at times borders on the sacrilegious. In view of the general nature of the work, it is easily intelligible that it should have appealed to Rabelais, who found in it the prototype of his "Panurge" and his "Gargantua".

Among the lesser works of Folengo are the "Zanitonella", which parodies both the Virgilian pastoral and the Petrarchian love-lyric; the "Orlandino" (1526), which gives in Italian octaves a burlesque account of the birth and youth of Roland; the curious "Caos Mel Triperuno" (1527), which in verse and prose and in mingled Latin, Italian, and Macaronic speech, sets forth allegorically the anthor's own previous heretical leanings and finally states his confession of faith and the "Moschaea", which in three books of Macaronic distichs relates, somewhat after the fashion of the "Batrachiomachia" as well as of the chivalrous romances, the victory of the ants over the flies, and preludes the Italian mock-heroic poem of the seventeenth century. After his return to his order, Folengo wrote only religious works, such as the Latin poem "Janus", wherein he expresses his repentance for having written his earlier venturesome compositions, the "Palermitana", in Italian terza rima; and the "Hagiomachia", which, in Latin hexameters, describes especially the lives of eighteen saints.

J.D.M. FORD

Foligno

DIOCESE OF FOLIGNO (FULGINATENSIS).

Diocese in the province of Perugia, Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See. The city, situated on the river Topino, was founded on the site of the ancient Christian cemetery surrounding the basilica of San Feliciano, outside the ancient city of Fulginium, which, after the battle on the Esinus (295 B.C.), was annexed to Rome. The splendour of the ancient city is attested by numerous ruins of temples, aqueducts, circuses, etc. In the municipal museum of Foligno is a large collection of household utensils of the Roman and Umbrian periods. Mention must also be made of the Foligno "Hercules", a famous statue now in the Louvre at Paris. After the Lombard invasion (565) the city formed part of the Duchy of Spoleto, with which, in the eighth century, it came into the possession of the Holy See. During the thirteenth century it was Ghibelline, but in 1305 the Guelphs under Nello Trinci expelled the Ghibellines with their leader Corrado Anastasi; thenceforth until 1439 the Trinci governed the city as the pope's vicars. In 1420 their rule was extended to Assisi, Spello, Bevagna, Nocera, Trevi, Giano, and Montefalco.

Art and literature flourished vigorously at Foligno. Evidence of this may still be seen in the Trinci palace, with its magnificent halls decorated by Ottaviano Nelli, Gentile da Fabriano, and others. Better preserved is the chapel, on the ceiling of which is pictured the life of the Blessed Virgin; in the adjoining room the story of Romulus and Remus is depicted. Another room is called "The Hall of Astronomy"; the largest is "The Hall of the Giants", so called from its immense portraits of personages of Biblical and Roman history. This splendid edifice has unfortunately been disgracefully neglected and now serves as a court of justice, prison, etc. At the court of the Trinci, especially Nicolò, were many distinguished poets, e.g. Mastro Paolo da Foligno. Fra Tommasuccio da Nocera, Candido Bontempi, and others; the most illustrious was the Dominican Federigo Frezzi, Bishop of Foligno (1403), whose "Quadriregio" is a kind of commentary on the "Hall of the Giants". After the murder of Nicolò Trinci in 1437, his brother Corrado began to rule in a tyrannical way; Eugene IV, therefore, in 1439 sent Cardinal Vitelleschi to demand his submission. Henceforth Foligno enjoyed a large communal liberty under a papal governor.

There is reason to believe that Christianity was introduced at Foligno in the first half of the second century. St. Felicianus, the patron of the city, though certainly not the first bishop, was consecrated by Pope Victor and martyred under Decius (24 January); the exact dates of his history are uncertain (Acta SS., Jan., II, 582-88; Analecta Boll., 1890, 381). Until 471 no other bishop is known. St. Vincentius of Laodicea in Syria was made bishop by Pope Hormisdas in 523. Of subsequent bishops the following may be mentioned: Eusebius, who persuaded King Luitprand to spare the city (740); Azzo degli Azzi, who distinguished himself at the Council of Rome in 1059 against Berengarius; Bonfiglio de' Bonfigli, who took part in the First Crusade; Blessed Antonio Bettini (1461), a Jesuit; Isidoro Clario (1547), a theologian at the Council of Trent. In 1146 a council was held at Foligno. The cathedral, of very early date, and possessing a beautiful crypt, was rebuilt in 1133; in 1201 a wing, with a façade, was added, famous for its sculptures by Binello and Rodolfo (statues of Frederick Barbarossa and of Bishop Anseim), restored in 1903. Other churches are: Santa Maria infra Portas, of the Lombard period, with Byzantine frescoes; San Claudio (1232); San Domenico (1251); San Giovanni Profiamma (1231), whose name recalls the ancient city of Forum Flaminii. The monastery of Sassovio (1229), with a remarkable cloister of 120 columns, and the Palazzo Communale are also noteworthy.

The diocese has 55 parishes, 31,000 inhabitants, 3 male and 3 female educational institutions, 4 religious houses of men, and 12 of women; it has also a weekly Catholic paper.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), IV; FALOCI-PULIGNANI, Foligno in L'Italia artistica (Bergamo, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Folkestone Abbey

Folkestone Abbey -- more correctly FOLKESTONE PRIORY -- is situated in the east division of Kent about thirty-seven miles from Maidstone. It was originally a monastery of Benedictine nuns founded in 630 by St. Eanswith or Eanswide, daughter of Eadbald, King of Kent, who was the son of St. Ethelbert, the first Christian king among the English. It was dedicated to St. Peter. Like many other similar foundations it was destroyed by the Danes. In 1095 another monastery for Benedictine monks was erected on the same site by Nigel de Mundeville, Lord of Folkestone. This was an alien priory, a cell belong to the Abbey of Lonley or Lolley in Normandy, dedicated to St. Mary and St. Eanswith, whose relics were deposited in the church. The cliff on which the monastery was built was gradually undermined by the sea, and William de Abrincis in 1137 gave the monks a new site, that of the present church of Folkestone. The conventional buildings were erected between the church and the sea coast. Being an alien priory it was occasionally seized by the king, when England was at war with France, but after a time it was made denizen and independent of the mother-house in Normandy and thus escaped the fate which befell most of the alien priories in the reign of Henry V. It continued to the time of the dissolution and was surrendered to the king on 15 Nov., 1535. The names of twelve priors are known, the last being Thomas Barrett or Bassett. The net income at the dissolution was about £50. It was bestowed by Henry VIII on Edmund, Lord Clinton and Saye; the present owner is Lord Radnor. The only part of the monastic buildings remaining is a Norman doorway, but the foundations may be traced for a considerable distance.

DUGDALE, Monasticon, Stevens' Supplement (London, 1722), I, 399; TANNER, Notitia Monastica (London, 1787), s. v. Kent; DUGDALE, Monast. Anglic. (London, 1846), IV, 672.

G.E. HIND

José Ribeiro da Fonseca

Friar Minor; b. at Evora, 3 Dec., 1690; d. at Porto, 16 June, 1752. He was received into the Franciscan Order in the convent of Ara Coeli at Rome, 8 Dec., 1712. As minister general of the order, he was untiring in his efforts to restore discipline in places where it had become lax; and displayed in this regard singular prudence, tact, and executive ability. In 1740 he founded the large library in the old convent of Ara Coeli, and under his direction and patronage, the "Annales Minorum" of Wadding were published at Rome in seventeen volumes, between the years 1731 and 1741. Fonseca several times declined the episcopal dignity, but finally accepted (1741) the See of Oporto, to which he was nominated by John V of Portugal.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Pedro Da Fonseca

A philosopher and theologian, born at Cortizada, Portugal, 1528; died at Lisbon, 4 Nov., 1599. He entered the Society of Jesus in Coimbra in 1548, and in 1551 passed to the University of Evora, where, after completing his studies, he lectured upon philosophy with such subtlety and brilliancy as to win for himself the title of the "Portuguese Aristotle". His works, which for over a century after his death were widely used in philosophical schools throughout Europe, are: "Institutionum Dialecticarum Libri Octo" (Lisbon, 1564); "Commentariorum in Libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Stagiritæ" (Rome, 1577); "Isagoge Philosophica" (Lisbon, 1591). These works appeared in an immense number of editions from the Catholic press all over Europe. Fonseca also shares the fame of the "Conimbricenses", as it was during his term of office as provincial and largely owing to his initiative that this celebrated work was undertaken by the Jesuit professors of Coimbra.

As a man of affairs, Fonseca was not less gifted than as a philosopher. He filled many important posts in his order, being assistant, for Portugal, to the general, visitor of Portugal, and superior of the professed house at Lisbon; while Gregory XIII and Philip II (from 1580 King of Portugal) employed him in affairs of the greatest delicacy and consequence. Fonseca used his influence wisely in promoting the interests of charity and learning. Many great institutions in Lisbon, notably the Irish college, owe their existence, at least in great part, to his zeal and piety. He is also credited with a considerable share in the drawing up of the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum. But his greatest claim to lasting reputation lies in the fact that he first devised the solution, by his scientia media in God, of the perplexing problem of the reconciliation of grace and free will. Nevertheless his fame in this matter has been somewhat obscured by that of his disciple, Luis de Molina, who, having more fully developed and perfected the ideas of his master in his work "Concordia Liberi Arbitrii cum Gratiæ Donis", etc., came gradually to be regarded as the originator of the doctrine.

SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., III, 837; DE BACKER, Bibl, des Ecrivains de la C. de J., I, 313, VII, 239; HURTER, Nomenclator, SCHNEEMANN, Zur Geschichte der Theorie von der Scientia Media in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XVIII, 237; IDEM, Die Entstehung der thomistisch-molinistischen Controverse, Supplement ix to Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg, 1880); IDEM, Controversiarum de devinœ gratiœ liberique arbitrii concordia initia et progressus (Freiburg, 1881).

JOHN F.X. MURPHY.

Antonio da Fonseca Soares

(ANTONIO DAS CHAGAS).

Friar Minor and ascetical writer; b. at Vidigueira, 25 June, 1631; d. at Torres Vedras, 20 Oct., 1682. Having entered the Portuguese army as a common soldier, he was forced to flee to Bahia in Brazil, as the result of a duel. There he abandoned himself to a careless and dissolute life, but was converted through the writings of Louis of Granada and resolved to embrace the religious life. The execution of his resolution was deferred indefinitely, and having returned to Portugal, he continued to lead his former life of dissipation, until in 1662 he was taken with a grievous illness. On his recovery he hastened to fulfil his promise, and was admitted into the Franciscan Order in May of the same year, receiving in religion the name of Antonio das Chagas. He soon became famous throughout Portugal on account of his poetical and ascetical writings, in which he combined remarkable erudition with such singular elegance of style as to give him a merited place among the classics of Portugal. He died universally esteemed for his virtuous life, leaving a great part of his writings still unpublished. The following were published since his death: "Faiscas de amor divino e lagrimas da alma" (Lisbon, 1683); "Obras espirituaes" (Lisbon, 1684-1687); "O Padre nosso commentado" (Lisbon, 1688); "Espelho do Espirito em que deve verse e comporse a Olma" etc. (Lisbon, 1683); "Escola da penitencia e flagello dos peccadores" (Lisbon, 1687); "Sermoés Genuinos" etc. (Lisbon, 1690); "Cartas espirituaes" (Lisbon, 1684); "Ramilhete espiritual" etc. (Lisbon, 1722).

GODINHO, VIda do F. Antonio da Fonseca Soares (Lisbon, 1687 and 1728); DE SOLEDAD, Historia serafica da provincia de Portugal, III, 3, 17.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Carlo Fontana

An architect and writer; b. at Bruciato, near Como, 1634; d. at Rome, 1714. There seems to be no proof that he belonged to the family of famous architects of the same name. Fontana went to Rome and studied architecture under Bernini. His principal works in Rome are the Ginetti chapel at Sant' Andrea della Valle; the Cibo chapel in Madonna del Popolo; the cupola, great altar, and ornaments of the Madonna de' Miracoli, the church of the monks of Santa Marta; the facades of the church of Beata Rita and of San Marcolo in the Corso, the sepulchre of Queen Christina of Sweden in St. Peter's; the palaces Grimani and Bolognetti; the fountain of Santa Maria in Trastevere, and that in the piazza of St. Peter's which is towards Porta Cavallegieri; reparation of the church of Spirito Santo de' Napolitani, and the theatre of Tordinona. By desire of Innocent XI, his patron, he erected the inmmense building of San Michele at Ripa; the chapel of Baptism at St. Peter's; and finished Monte Citorio. By request of Clement XI he built the granaries at Termini, the portico of Santa Maria in Trastevere, and the basin of the fountain of San Pietro Montorio. He restored the Library of Minerva, the cupola of Montefiascone and the casino in the Vatican, and collected all the models of the building. He sent a model for the cathedral of Fulda, and others to Vienna for the royal stables. By order of Innocent XI he wrote a diffuse description of the Templum Vaticanum (1694). In this work Fontana advised the demolition of that nest of houses which formed a sort of island from Ponte Sant' Angelo to the piazza of St. Peter's. Fontana made a calculation of the whole expense of St. Peter's from the beginning to 1694, which amounted to 46,800,052 crowns, without including models. He published also works on the Flavian Amphitheatre; the Aqueducts; the inundation of the Tiber, etc. He was assisted by his nephews Girolamo and Francesco Fontana. Fontana seems to have been considered an able artist and a good designer and more successful as an architect than as a writer.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Domenico Fontana

A Roman architect of the Late Renaissance, b. at Merli on the Lake of Lugano, 1543; d. at Naples, 1607. He went to Rome before the death of Michelangelo and made a deep study of the works of ancient and modern masters. He won in particular the confidence of Cardinal Montalto, later Pope Sixtus V, who in 1584 charged him with the erection of the Cappella del Presepio (Chapel of the Manger) in S. Maria Maggiore, a powerful domical building over a Greek cross, a marvellously well-balanced structure, notwithstanding the profusion of detail and overloading of rich ornamentation, which in no way interferes with the main architecural scheme. lt is crowned by a dome in the early style of S. Mario at Montepulciano. For the same patron he constructed the Palazzo Montalto near S. Maria Maggiore, with its skilful distribution of masses and tied decorative scheme of reliefs and festoons, impressive because of the dexterity with which the artist adapted the plan to the site at his disposal. After his accession as Sixtus V, Montalto appointed Fontana architect of St. Peter's, bestowing upon him among other distinction the title of Knight of the Golden Spur. He added the lantern to the dome of St. Peter's and it was he who proposed the prolongation of the interior in a well-defined nave. Of more importance were the alterations he made in St. John Lateran (c.1586) where he introduced into the loggia of the north facade an imposing double arcade of wide span and ample sweep, and probably added the two-story portico the Scala Santa. This predilection for arcades as essential features of an architectural scheme, was brought out in the different fountains designed by Domenico and his brother Giovanni, e.g. the Fontana dell' Acqua Paola, or the Fontana di Termini planned along the same lines. Among profane buildings his strong restrained style, with its suggestion of the School of Vignola, is best exemplified in the Lateran Palace (begun 1586), in which the vigorous application of sound structural principles and a power of co-ordination are undeniable, but also the utter lack of imagination and barren monotony of style. It was characteristic of him to remain satisfied with a single solution of an architectural problem, as shown in the fact that he reapplied the motif of the Lateran Palace in the later part of the Vatican containing the present papal residence, and in the additions to the Quirinal Palace. Fontana also designed the transverse arms separating the courts of the Vatican. In 1586 he set up the obelisk in the Square of St. Peter's, of which he gives an account in "Della transportatione dell' obelisco Vaticano e delle fabriche di Sisto V" (Rome, 1590). The knowledge of statics here displayed, which aroused universal astonishment at the time, he availed himself of in the erection of three other ancient obelisks on the Piazza del Popolo, Piazza di S. Maria Maggiore, and Piazza di S. Giovanni in Laterano. After his patron's death he continued for some time in the service of his successor, Clement VIII. Soon, however, dissatisfaction with his style, envy, and the charge that he had misappropriated public moneys, drove him to Naples where, an addition to canals, he erected the Palazzo Reale on a design totally devoid of imagination. His aim was to execute a sharply defined plan in vigorous sequence without concern for detail, employing the means available but without much originality. The chief lack in his work is a want of the distinctive character of an individual creation. Undue spaciousness, tremendous expanse, with an appalling barrenness and coldness and without the inspiration of inner motif, are his ideals.

Domenico's brother Giovanni (b. 1546; d at Rome, 1614) is of less importance. His chief creations are gigantic fountains, spiritless in detail, at Frascati and Rome, where the Palazzo Giustiniani as also ascribed to him.

JOSEPH SAUER

Felice Fontana

Italian naturalist and physiologist, b. at Pomarolo in the Tyrol, 15 April, 1730; d. at Florence, 11 January, 1805. He received his early education at Roveredo and spent several years at the Universities of Padua and Bologna. After filling the chair of philosophy at Pisa, to which he was appointed by the Emperor Francis I, he was summoned to Florence by the Grand-Duke Peter Leopold and made court Physician. He was at the same time commissioned to organize and equip the museum, which is well known for its geological and zoological collections and its physical and astronomical instruments, some of which are of much historical value. A special feature of the collections is the unique set of anatomical models which were made of coloured wax under Fontana's personal direction. They were of excellent workmanship and excited much attention at the time emperor Joseph II engaged him to make a simiiar set for the Academy of Surgeons in Vienna. Fontana spent the latter part of his life in Florence where his position as curator of the museum gained for him the acquaintance of most of the scientific men of the time. Though never in Holy orders, he is said to have worn the ecclesiastical dress. His death was due to a fall received on the public street, and he was buried in the church of Santa Croce near Galileo and Viviani. Fontana was a follower of Haller and wrote a series of letters in confirmation of the latter's views on irritability. He made a special study of the eye and in 1765 carried on a series of experiments on the contractile power of the iris. He investigated the physiological action of poisons, particularly of serpents and of the laurel berry. He discovered that the staggers, a disease of sheep, is due to hydatids in the brain. He also gave much attention to the study of the physical and chemical properties of gases. He published a number of memoirs and though a laborius writer was not always exact. His chief works are "De' moti dell' iride" (Lucca, 1765); "Ricerche filosofiche sopra la fiscia animalea" (Florence, 1775); "Ricerche fisiche sopra 'l veneno della vipera" (Lucca, 1767), of which a larger and much extended edition was published in two volumes in 1781; "Descrizioni ed usi di alcuni stromenti per misurer la salubrita dell' aria" (Florence, 1774); "Recherches physiques sur la nature de l'air dephlogistique et de l'air nitreux" (Paris, 1776).

HENRY M. BROCK

Jeanne Fontbonne

In religion Mother St. John, second foundress and superior-general of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Lyons, born 3 March, 1759, at Bassen-Basset, Valey, France; died 22 November, 1843 Lyons.

In 1778 she entered a house of the Sisters of St. Joseph which had just been established at Monistrol (Haute-Loire) by Bishop de Gallard of Le Puy. The following year she received the habit and soon gave evidence of unusual administrative powers, particularly through her work in the schools. On her election, six years later, as superior of the community, Mother St. John, as she was now called, co-operated with the saintly founder in all his pious undertakings, aided in the establishment of a hospital, and accomplished much good among the young girls of the town. At the outbreak of the Revolution she and her community followed Bishop de Gallard in refusing to sign the Oath of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, notwithstanding the example of the Curé of Monistrol, who went so far as to abet the government officials in their persecution of the sisters. Forced to disperse her community, the superior remained at her post till she was dragged forth by the mob and the convent taken possession of in the name of the Commune, after which she returned to her father's home. Not long afterwards she was torn from this refuge, to be thrown into the prison of Saint-Didier, and only the fall of Robespierre on the day before that appointed for the execution saved her from the guillotine.

Unable to regain possession of her convent at Monistrol, she and her sister, who had been her companion in prison, returned to their father's house. Twelve years later (1807), Mother St. John was called to Saint-Etienne as head of a small community of young girls and members of dispersed congregations, who at the suggestion of Cardinal Fesch, Archbishop of Lyons, were now established as a house of the Sisters of St. Joseph. She restored the asylum at Monistrol, repurchased and reopened the former convent, and on 10 April, 1812, the congregation received Government authorization. In 1816 Mother St. John was appointed superior general of the Sisters of St. Joseph, and summoned to Lyons to found a general mother-house and novitiate, which she accomplished after many difficult years of labour. During the remainder of her life she was busied in perfecting the affiliation of the scattered houses of the congregation, which had been formally decreed in 1828. She also established over two hundred new communities. An object of her special solicitude was the little band which she sent to the United States in 1836 and with which she kept in constant correspondence, making every sacrifice to provide them with the necessities of life. Towards this end of her life, Mother St. John was relieved of the arduous duties of superior, and spent the last few years in preparation for the end.

RIVAXY, Life of Rev. Mother St. John Fontbonne, tr. (New York, 1887).

F.M. RUDGE

Fonte-Avellana

A suppressed order of hermits, which takes its name from their first hermitage in the Apennines. Its founder, Ludolph, the son of Giso, came of a German family that had settled in Gubbio. He was born about the year 956; in 977 he left his home and, with a companion called Julian, began to live the life of a hermit in a valley between Monte Catria and Monte Corvo, in the Apennines. This valley was known as Fonte-Avellana, from a spring among the pine-trees. Disciples soon gathered round the two hermits, by 989 they were sufficiently numerous to receive a rule from St. Romuald, who was then in that district. This rule seems to have been of great severity. The hermits lived in separate cells and were always occupied with prayer, study, or manual labour. Four days a week they ate nothing but bread and water in strictly limited quantities. On Tuesdays and Thursdays they added a little fruit and vegetables. Wine was used only for Mass and for the sick, meat not at all. They observed three "Lents" during the year, that of the Resurrection, that of the Nativity, and that of St. John the Baptist. During these they fasted on bread and water every day except Sundays and Thursdays, when they were allowed a few vegetables. They wore a white habit and their feet were bare. Every day in addition to the office, they recited the whole Psalter before dawn. Many wore chains and girdles or other instruments of mortification, and each, according to his devotion and strength, was accustomed to scourge himself, to make many genuflexions and to pray with arms extended in the form of a cross.

At first the body of hermits was known as the Congregation of the Dove, from the pure and gentle character of its founder, but then, about the year 1000, he built them their first regular hermitage, which was dedicated to St. Andrew, they soon became known as the Hermits of Fonte-Avellana. Ludolph is said by Ughelli to have resigned the office of prior in 1009 and to have become Bishop of Gubbio, but by leave of Benedict VIII he resigned this office in 1012 and retired again to his hermitage. It is not improbable that he was succeeded in the priorate by Julian about 1009, but there seems to be no satisfactory evidence that he was ever Bishop of Gubbio. He died in 1047. In 1034, St. Peter Damian became a hermit at Fonte-Avellana, at a time when, it is supposed, the famous Guido d'Arezzo was prior. St. Peter Damian succeeded to the office of prior about 1043 and held it until his death in 1072. He made some modifications of the rule; permitting the use of a little wine, except during the three Lents; restraining the immoderate use of the discipline, which had outgrown all prudence; and introducing the solemn observance of Fridays as a commemoration of the Holy Cross for which reason the hermitage, since the year 1050, was been known as Holy Cross of Fonte-Avellana.

During the priorate of St. Peter Damian several hermits of great sanctity were members of Fonte-Avellana. The earliest of these was St. Dominic Loricatus, so-called from the breastplate (lorica) which he always wore next to his skin. This extraordinary ascetic was born about the year 990 and was destined for the priesthood by his parents, who bribed a bishop to ordain him before the canonical age. After living for a few years as a secular priest, he was struck with contrition for the sin of simony to which he had teen a party and became a monk. This was probably at the hermitage of Luceoli, as we are told that he placed himself under the direction of John of Monte Feltro. Here he remained till about 1044, when, desiring to increase the severity of his penances, he came to Fonte-Avellana to be the disciple of St. Peter Damian. The record of his cuirass, he wore habitually iron rings and chains round his limbs, and loaded with this weight he daily prostrated himself a thousand times or recited whole psalters with arms extended in the form of a cross. Day and night he lacerated his body with a pair of scourges.

It had become the custom to regard the recital of thirty psalms while taking the discipline (i.e. about three thousand strokes) as equivalent to one year's canonical penance. So that to scourge oneself while reciting the whole psalter was to execute five years of penance. St. Dominic Loricatus is related to have accomplished in this manner one hundred years of penance (i.e. twenty psalters), spreading the penance over one week. And during one or two Lents he is said to have fulfilled in this way one thousand years of penance, scourging himself night and day for forty days while he recited no less than two hundred psalters. Daily he used to recite two or three psalters, and daily in Lent eight or nine. Meanwhile he ate only the stricter diet of his fellow-hermits and he never slept save when, from sheer fatigue, he fell asleep in the midst of his prostrations. In 1059 St. Peter Damian appointed him prior of the hermitage of Sanvicino, near San Severino. Here he continued his terrible penances up to his death about 1060. His body still lies under the altar in the church at Sanvicino. Another saintly companion of St. Peter Damian was his biographer, St. John II of Lodi (Bishop of Gubbio), when entered Fonte-Avellana about the year 1065 and became prior of the hermitage soon after the death of his friend in 1072, which office he retained till he was made Bishop of Gubbio, one year before his death in 1106.

In addition, there were the blessed brothers Rudolph and Peter, who in 1054 gave their castle at Campo Regio to St. Peter Damian and retired to Fonte-Avellana. Rudolph became bishop of Gubbio in 1059 and in that year attended a council at Rome. He died in 1061. Of his brother Peter little is known save that he lived a life of great mortification. Four years after the death of St. Peter Damian, Gregory VII in 1076 took the hermitage of Fonte-Avellana under the special protection of the Holy See, and for 250 years popes and emperors and nobles showered privileges upon it. In 1301 Boniface VIII subjected the hermitage immediately to the Holy See, and in 1325 John XXII raised it to the status of an abbey, and ordained that its abbots should always receive their blessing at the hands of the pope or of his legate a latere. In the early fourteenth century it had grown to be a great congregation with many subject houses. But the glory of Fonte-Avellana was soon to pass. In 1393 it was given in commendam to Cardinal Bartolomeo Mediavacca, and the evils that follow this practice soon appeared. Slowly the fervour of observance departed, and the religious lived rather like secular clergy than like hermits. By the sixteenth century the habit had changed, and they wore a short white cassock, a blue mantle, shoes, and a white biretta.

In 1624 the great Camaldolese reformer, S. Paolo Giustiniani, suggested that the congregation of Fonte-Avellana should be united to his own order. The project then came to nothing, but in 1568 Cardinal Giulio della Rovere, the commendatory abbot of Fonte-Avellana, joined with his brother the Duke of Urbino in urging on Pius V the canonical visitation of the hermitage. This was performed early in 1569 by Giambattista Barba, general of the Camaldolese, and in November of the same year the pope by the Bull "Quantum animus noster", suppressed the order of Fonte-Avellana, transferred its members to Camaldoli or any other house they might choose, and united all its possessions under the jurisdiction of the Camaldolese Order. On 6 January, 1570, the Camaldolese solemnly entered into possession, and the order of Santa Croce of Fonte-Avellana ceased to exist.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Abbey of Fontenelle

(Or ABBEY OF SAINT WANDRILLE).

A Benedictine monastery in Normandy (Seine-Inférieure), near Caudebec-en-Caux. It was founded by Saint-Wandrille (Wandregesilus, d. 22 July, 667), the land being obtained through the influence of his friend St-Ouen (Audoenus) Archbishop of Rouen. St-Wandrille was of the royal family of Austrasia and held a high position at the court of his kinsman, Dagobert I, but being desirous of devoting his life to God, he retired to the Abbey of Montfaucon, in Champagne, in 629. Later on he went to Bobbio and then to Romain-Moutiers, where he remained ten years. In 648 he returned to Normandy and founded the monastery which afterwards bore his name. He commenced by building a great basilica dedicated to St. Peter, nearly three hundred feet long, which was consecrated by St-Ouen in 657. This church was destroyed by fire in 756 and rebuilt by Abbot Ansegisus (823-33), who added a narthex and tower. About 862 it was wrecked by Danish pirates and the monks were obliged to flee for safety. After sojourning at Chartres, Boulogne, St. Omer, and other places for over a century, the community was at length brought back to Fontenelle by Abbot Maynard in 966 and a restoration of the buildings was again undertaken. A new church was built by abbot Gérard, but was hardly finished when it was destroyed by lighting in 1012. Undaunted by this disaster the monks once more set to work and another church was consecrated in 1033. Two centuries later, in 1250, this was burnt to the ground, but Abbot Pierre Mauviel at once commenced a new one. The work was hampered by want of funds and it was not until 1331 that the building was finished. Meanwhile the monastery attained a position of great importance and celebrity. It was renowned for the fervour, no less than for the learning of monks, who during its periods of greatest prosperity numbered over three hundred. Many saints and scholars proceeded from its cloisters. It was especially noted for its library and school, where letters, the fine arts, the sciences, and above all calligraphy, were assiduously cultivated.

One of the most notable of its early copyists was Hardouin, a celebrated mathematician (d. 811) who wrote with his own hand four copies of the Gospels, one of St. Paul's Epistles, a Psalter, three Sacramentaries, and many other volumes of homilies and lives of the saints, besides numerous mathematical works. The Fontenelle "Capitularies" were compiled under Abbot Ansegisus in the eighth century. The monks of St-Wandrille enjoyed many rights and privileges, amongst which were exemption from all river-tolls on the Seine, and the right to exact taxes in the town of Caudebec. The charter, dated 1319, in which were enumerated their chief privileges, was confirmed by Henry V of England and Normandy, in 1420, and by the Council of Basle, in 1436. Commendatory abbots were introduced at Fontenelle on the sixteenth century and as a result the prosperity of the abbey began to decline. In 1631 the central tower of the church suddenly fell, ruining all the adjacent parts, but fortunately without injuring the beautiful cloisters or the conventual buildings.

It was just at this time that the newly formed Congregation of St-Maur was revivifying the monasticism of France, and the commendatory abbot Ferdinand de Neufville invited the Maurists to take over the abbey and do for it what he himself was unable to accomplish. They accepted the offer, and in 1636 set about rebuilding not only the damaged portion of the church, They added new wings and gateways and also built a great chapter-hall for the meetings of the general chapter of the Maurist congregation. They infused new life into the abbey, which for the next hundred and fifty years again enjoyed some of its former celebrity. Then came the Revolution, and with it the extinction of monasticism in France. St-Wandrille was suppressed in 1791 and sold by auction the following year. The church was allowed to fall into ruins, but the rest of the buildings served for some time as a factory. Later on they passed into the possession of the de Stacpoole family, and were turned to domestic uses. The Duke de Stacpoole, who had become a priest and a domestic prelate of the pope, and who lived at Fontenelle until his death, in 1896, restored the entire property to the French Benedictines (Solesmes congregation), and a colony of monks from Ligugé settled there in 1893, under Dom Pothier as superior. This community was expelled by the French government in 1901, and is at present located in Belgium. Besides the chief basilica St-Wandrille built several other churches or oratories both within and without the monastic enclosure. All of these have either perished in course of time, or been replaced by others of later date, except one, the chapel of St-Saturnin, which stands on the hillside overlooking the abbey. It is one of the most ancient ecclesiastical buildings now existing and, though restored from time to time, is still substantially the original erection of St-Wandrille. It is cruciform, with a central tower and eastern apse, and is a unique example of a seventh-century chapel. The parish church of the village of St-Wandrille also dates from the Saint's time, but it has been so altered and restored that little of the original structure now remains.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Order and Abbey of Fontevrault

I. CHARACTER OF THE ORDER

The monastery of Fontevrault was founded by Blessed Robert d'Arbrissel about the end of 1100 and is situated in a wooded valley on the confines of Anjou, Tours, and Poitou, about two and a half miles south of the Loire, at a short distance west of its union with the Vienne. It was a "double" monastery, containing separate convents for both monks and nuns. The government was in the hands of the abbess. This arrangement was said to be based upon the text of St. John (xix, 27), "Behold thy Mother", but want of capacity among the brethren who surrounded the founder would seem to be the most natural explanation. To have placed the fortunes of the rising institute in feeble hands might have compromised its existence, while amongst the nuns he found women endowed with high qualities and in every way fitted for government. Certainly the long series of able abbesses of Fontevrault is in some measure a justification of the founder's provision.

Fontevrault was the earliest of the three orders which adopted the double form and it may be useful to point out the chief differences in rule and government which mark it off from the similar institutions of the English St. Gilbert of Sempringham, founded in 1135 (see Gilbertines), and that of the Swedish princess, St. Bridgett, founded in 1344 (see Brigittines). At Fontevrault both nuns and monks followed the Benedictine Rule (see below, II), as did the Gilbertine nuns, but the male religious of that order were canons regular and followed the Rule of St. Augustine. The Brigittines of both sexes were under the Regular Salvatoris, an adaptation and completion of the Augustinian Rule. The Abbess of Fontevrault was supreme over all the religious of the order, and the heads of the dependent houses were prioresses. Each Brigittine house was independent, and was ruled by an abbess who was supreme in all temporalities, but in matters spiritual was forbidden to interfere with the priests, who were under the confessor general. The head of the Gilbertines was a canon, the "Master" or "Prior of All", who was not attached to any one house; his power was absolute over the whole order. All three orders were primarily founded for nuns, the priests being added for their direction or spiritual service, and in all three the nuns had control of the property of the order. The habit of the Fontevrist nuns was a white tunic and surplice with a black girdle, a white guimp and black veil; the cowl was black. The monks wore a black tunic with a surplice and above it a hood and capuce; from the centre of the last, in front and behind, hung a small square of stuff known as the "Robert". In winter the monks wore an ample cloak without sleeves. The original habit was in both cases more simple.

II. THE RULE

It appears certain from the biography of Blessed Robert, which is known as the "Vita Andreæ", that the Rule was written down during the founder's lifetime, probably in 1116 or 1117. This original Rule dealt with four points: silence, good works, food, and clothing, and contained the injunction that the abbess should never be chosen from among those who had been brought up at Fontevrault, but that she should be one who had had experience of the world (de conversis sororibus). This latter injunction was observed only in the case of the first two abbesses and was abrogated by Innocent III in 1201. We have three versions of the Fontevrist Rule (P. L., CLXII, 1079 sqq.), but it is clear that none of these is the original, though it is probable that the second version is a fragment or possibly a selection with additions by the first abbess, Petronilla (for the argument see Walter, op. cit. infra, pp. 65-74). This Rule was merely a supplement to the Rule of St. Benedict and there were no important variations from the latter in the ordinary conventual routine, though some additions were necessitated by the conditions of the "double" life. The rules for the nuns enjoin the utmost simplicity in the materials of the habit, a strict observance of silence, abstinence from flesh meat even for the sick, and rigorous enclosure. The separation of the nuns from the monks is carried to such a point that a sick nun must be brought into the church to receive the last sacraments. The subjection of the monks is very marked. They are men "who of their own free will have promised to serve the nuns till death in the bonds of obedience, and that too with the reverence of due subjection.... They shall lead a common conventual life with no property of their own, content with what the nuns shall confer upon them." The very scraps from their table are to be "carried to the nuns' door and there given to the poor". A fugitive but penitent monk "shall ask pardon of the Abbess and through her regain the fellowship of the brethren." The monks cannot even receive a postulant without the permission of the abbess.

III. HISTORY OF THE ORDER

At the death of Robert d'Arbrissel, in 1117, there are said to have been at Fontevrault alone 3000 nuns, and in 1150 even 5000: the order was approved by Paschal II in 1112. The first abbess, Petronilla of Chemillé (1115-1149), was succeeded by Matilda of Anjou, who ruled for five years. She was the daughter of Fulk, King of Jerusalem, and widow of William, the eldest son of Henry I, of England. The prosperity of the abbey continued under the next two abbesses, but by the end of the twelfth century, owing to the state of the country and the English wars, the nuns were reduced to gaining their livelihood by manual work. The situation was aggravated by internal dissensions which lasted a hundred years, and prosperity did not return till the beginning of the fourteenth century, under the rule of Eleanor of Brittany, grand-daughter of Henry III of England, who had taken the veil at the Fontevrist priory of Amesbury, in Wiltshire. The next abbess was Isabel of Valois, great-grandchild of St. Louis, but on her death there succeeded another period of trouble and decadence largely due to the disaffection of the monks who where discontented with their subordinate position. During the fifteenth century there were several attempts at reform, but these met with no success till the advent to power, in 1457, of Mary, sister of Francis II, Duke of Brittany. The order had suffered severely from the decay of religion, which was general about this time, as well as from the Hundred Years War. In the three priories of St-Aignan, Breuil, and Ste-Croix there were in all but five nuns and one monk, where there had been 187 nuns and 17 monks at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and other houses were no better off. In 1459, a papal commission decided upon a mitigation of rules which could no longer be enforced, and nuns were even allowed to leave the order on the simple permission of their priories. Dissatisfied with the mitigated life of Fontevrault, Mary of Brittany removed to the priory of La Madeleine-les-Orléans in 1471. Here she deputed a commission consisting of religious of various orders to draw up a definite Rule based on the Rules of Blessed Robert, St. Benedict, and St. Augustine, together with the Acts of Visitations. The resulting code was finally approved by Sixtus IV in 1475, and four years later it was made obligatory upon the whole order. Mary of Brittany died in 1477, but her work was continued by her successors, Anne of Orléans, sister of Louis XII, and Renée de Bourbon. The latter may well be styled the greatest of the abbesses, both on account of the numbers of priories (28) in which she re-established discipline, and the victory which she gained over the rebellious religious at Fontevrault by the reform, enforced with royal assistance in 1502. The result was a great influx of novices of the highest rank, including several princesses of Valois and Bourbon. At Renée's death there were 160 nuns and 150 monks at Fontevrault. Under Louis de Bourbon (1534-1575), a woman of sincere but gloomy piety, the order suffered many losses at the hands of the Protestants, who even besieged the great abbey itself, though without success; many nuns apostatized, but twelve more houses were reformed. Eleanor of Bourbon (1575-1611) saw the last of these troubles. She had great influence with Henry IV, and her affection for him was so great that, towards the end of her life, when he was assassinated, her nuns dared not tell her lest the shock should be too great.

The Abbess Louise de Bourbon de Lavedan, aided by the famous Capuchins, Ange de Joyeuse and Joseph du Tremblay, sought to improve the status of the monks of St-Jean de l'Habit and made various attempts to establish theological seminaries for them. Her successor Jeanne-Baptiste de Bourbon, an illegitimate child of Henry IV by the beautiful Charlotte des Essarts, has the credit of finally giving peace to the order. In 1641 she obtained royal letters confirming the reform and finally quashing the claims of the monks, who sought to organize themselves independently of the authority of the abbess. The following year the Rule approved by Sixtus IV was printed at Paris. The "Queen of Abbesses", Gabrielle de Rochechouart (1670-1704), sister of Mme. de Montespan and friend of Mme. de Maintenon, is said to have translated all the works of Plato from the Latin version of Ficino. The abbey school was frequented by the children of the highest nobility, and her successors were entrusted with the education of the daughters of Louis XV. The last abbess, Julie Sophie Charlotte de Pardaillan d'Antin, was driven from her monastery by the Revolution; her fate is unknown. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there were 230 nuns and 60 monks at Fontevrault, and at the Revolution there were still 200 nuns, but the monks were few in number and only formed a community at the mother-house. In the course of his preaching journeys through France, Robert d'Arbrissel had founded a great number of houses, and during the succeeding centuries others were given to the order. In the seventeenth century the Fontevrist priories numbered about sixty in all and were divided into the four provinces of France, Brittany, Gascony, and Auvergne. The order never attained to any great importance outside France though there were a few houses in Spain and England. The history of the order is, as will already have been seen, that of the mother-house. The Angevin kings were much attached to Fontevrault: Henry II and his queen, Eleanor of Guienne, Richard Coeur de Lion, and Isabel of Angoulême, the wife of King John, were buried in the Cimetière des Rois in the abbey church, where their effigies may still be seen. The remains were scattered at the Revolution.

IV. THE ABBEY BUILDINGS

The Abbey of Fontevrault was in four parts: the Grand Moustier, or convent of the nuns, the hospital and lazaretto of Saint-Lazare, the Madeleine for penitent women, and, some distance apart, the monastery of St-Jean de l'Habit for the monks, destroyed at the Revolution. The most notable buildings were naturally those belonging to the nuns with the great minster dedicated to Our Lady. This was consecrated by Pope Callistus II, in 1119, but the church was probably rebuilt in the second half of the same century. It is a magnificent specimen of late Romanesque and consists of an aisleless nave vaulted with six shallow cupolas, transepts, and an apsidal chancel with side chapels. In 1804 the abbey became a central house of detention for 15,000 prisoners, and the nave of the church was cut up into four stories forming dormitories and refectories for the convicts, while the choir and transepts were walled up and used as their chapel. Five of the six cupolas were destroyed, but the nave has recently been cleared, and a complete restoration begun. The length of the church is 84 metres (about 276 ft.), the width of the nave 14m. 60 (about 48 ft.), and the height 21m. 45 (about 70 ft.). The interesting cloisters and chapter-house may be visited, but the magnificent refectory, dating from the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, is not shown.

V. ENGLISH HOUSES

These were the Priories of Amesbury, in Wiltshire, and Nuneaton, in Warwickshire, and the Cell of Westwood, in Worcestershire, with six nuns. Amesbury had been an abbey, but on account of their evil lives the nuns were dispersed by royal orders and the monastery given to Fontevrault in 1177. The community was recruited from the highest ranks of society and in the thirteenth century numbered among its members several princesses of the royal house, among them Queen Eleanor of Provence, widow of Henry III. A survey of the English houses was taken in 1256, when there were 77 choir nuns, 7 chaplains and 16 conversi at Amesbury, and 86 nuns at Nuneaton. In the fourteenth century the officials were appointed by the Abbess of Fontevrault, but the bonds uniting the English nunneries to the mother-house were gradually loosened until from alien they became denizen, that is to say, practically independent. In the last days some of the Prioresses of Amesbury seem to have resumed the ancient abbatial title; at the dissolution, in 1540, the house was surrendered by Joan Darrell and thirty-three nuns. A Prior of Amesbury is mentioned in 1399, but it does not seem certain that there were at any time regular establishments of the Fontevrist monks in England.

VI. MODERN DEVELOPMENT

In 1803 Madame Rose, a Fontevrist nun, opened a school at Chemillé, the home of the first abbess, and three years later was enabled to buy a house and start community life; only temporary vows were taken, and the constitutions were approved by the Bishop of Angers. A few years later the habit of Fontevrault was resumed. Twelve more Fontrevists joined the community, and the ancient Rule was kept as far as possible. In 1847 permission was granted by the government to remove the relics of Blessed Robert from Fontevrault to Chemillé, and by 1849 there were three houses of the revived congregation: Chemillé in the Diocese of Angers; Boulor in the Diocese of Auch; and Brioude in the Diocese of Puy. In this year a general chapter was held, in which certain modifications of the Rule were agreed upon: the many fasts were found ill adapted to the work of teaching; the houses were made subject to the ordinary; and the superioress elected only for three years. There are no Fontevrist monks.

For full bibliography see Beaunier, Heimbucher, and Walter as below.-The standard work is Nicquet, Hist. de l'Ordre de Fontevrault (Paris, 1642); Lardier, Saincte Famille de Fontevraud (1650), unfortunately still in MS. For the Rule see Walter Ersten Wanderprediger Frankreichs (Leipzig, 1903), I; Regula Ordinis Fontis-Ebraldi (Fr. and Lat., Paris, 1642). See also Heimbucher, Ord. u. Kong. der Kath. Kirche (Paderborn, 1907), I; Cosnier, Fontisbraldi Exordium (Masserano, 1641); Hélyot, Hist. des Ordres Religieux, VI; Beaunier, Recueil hist. des archevêchés, etc., Introductory vol. (Paris, 1906), 215-226; Besse, Fontevraud and the English Benedictines at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century in The Ampleforth Journal, II; Bishop, Bishop Giffard and the Reform of Fontevraud in The Downside Review (Jan., 1886); Jubien, L'Abbesse Marie de Bretagne et la réforme de l'ordre de Fontevrault (Angers, 1872); Clément, Abbesse de Fontevrault au XVIIe Siècle (Paris, 1869); Uzureau, Dernière Abbesse de Fontevrault in Revue Mabillon, II. The only adequate account of the buildings, though now a little out of date, is given by Bosseboeuf, Fontevrault, son histoire et ses monuments (Tours, 1890.)

RAYMUND WEBSTER

Feast of Fools

A celebration marked by much license and buffoonery, which in many parts of Europe, and particularly in France, during the later middle ages took place every year on or about the feast of the Circumcision (1 Jan.). It was known by many names -- festum fatuorum, festum stultorum, festum hypodiaconorum, to notice only some Latin variants -- and it is difficult, if not quite impossible, to distinguish it from certain other similar celebrations, such, for example, as the Feast of Asses, and the Feast of the Boy Bishop. So far as the Feast of Fools had an independent existence, it seems to have grown out of a special "festival of the subdeacons", which John Beleth, a liturgical writer of the twelfth century and an Englishman by birth, assigns to the day of the Circumcision. He is among the earliest to draw attention to the fact that, as the deacons had a special celebration on St. Stephen's day (26 Dec.), the priests on St. John the Evangelist's day (27. Dec.), and again the choristers and mass-servers on that of Holy Innocents (28 Dec.), so the subdeacons were accustomed to hold their feast about the same time of year, but more particularly on the festival of the Circumcision. This feast of the subdeacons afterwards developed into the feast of the lower clergy (esclaffardi), and was later taken up by certain brotherhoods or guilds of "fools" with a definite organization of their own (Chambers, I, 373 sqq.). There can be little doubt -- and medieval censors themselves freely recognized the fact -- that the license and buffoonery which marked this occasion had their origin in pagan customs of very ancient date. John Beleth, when he discusses these matters, entitles his chapter "De quadam libertate Decembrica", and goes on to explain: "now the license which is then permitted is called Decembrian, because it was customary of old among the pagans that during this month slaves and serving-maids should have a sort of liberty given them, and should be put upon an equality with their masters, in celebrating a common festivity." (P.L. CCII, 123).

The Feast of Fools and the almost blasphemous extravagances in some instances associated with it have constantly been made the occasion of a sweeping condemnation of the medieval Church. On the other hand some Catholic writers have thought it necessary to try to deny the existence of such abuses. The truth, as Father Dreves has pointed out (Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XLVII, 572), lies midway between these extremes. There can be no question that ecclesiastical authority repeatedly condemned the license of the Feast of Fools in the strongest terms, no one being more determined in his efforts to suppress it than the great Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. But these customs were so firmly rooted that centuries passed away before they were entirely eradicated. Secondly, it is equally certain that the institution did lend itself to abuses of a very serious character, even though the nature and gravity of these varied considerably at different epochs. In defense of the medieval Church one point must not be lost sight of. We possess hundreds, not to say thousands, of liturgical manuscripts of all countries and all descriptions. Amongst them the occurrence of anything which has to do with the Feast of Fools is extraordinarily rare. In missals and breviaries we may say that it never occurs. At best a prose or a trope composed for such an occasion is here and there to be found in a gradual or an antiphonary (Dreves, p. 575). It is reasonable to infer from this circumstance that though these extravagances took place in church and were attached to the ordinary services, the official sanction was of the slenderest.

The same conclusion follows from two well-known cases which Father Dreves has carefully studied. In 1199, Bishop Eudes de Sully imposed regulations to check the abuses committed in the celebration of the Feast of Fools on New Year's Day at Notre-Dame in Paris. The celebration was not entirely banned, but the part of the "Lord of Misrule" or "Precentor Stultorum" was restrained within decorous limits. He was to be allowed to intone the prose "Laetemur gaudiis" in the cathedral, and to wield the precentor's staff, but this was to take place before the first Vespers of the feast were sung. Apart from this, the Church offices proper were to be performed as usual, with, however, some concessions in the way of extra solemnity. During the second Vespers, it had been the custom that the precentor of the fools should be deprived of his staff when the verse "Deposuit potentes de sede" (He hath put down the mighty from their seat) was sung at the Magnificat. Seemingly this was the dramatic moment, and the feast was hence often known as the "Festum `Deposuit'". Eudes de Sully permitted that the staff might here be taken from the mock precentor, but enacted that the verse "Deposuit" was not be repeated more than five times. A similar case of a legitimized Feast of Fools at Sens c. 1220 is also examined by Father Dreves in detail. The whole text of the office is in this case preserved to us. There are many proses and interpolations (farsurae) added to the ordinary liturgy of the Church, but nothing which could give offense as unseemly, except the prose "Orientis partibus", etc., partly quoted in the article ASSES, FEAST OF. This prose or "conductus", however, was not a part of the office, but only a preliminary to Vespers sung while the procession of subdeacons moved from the church door to the choir. Still, as already stated, there can be no question of the reality of the abuses which followed in the wake of celebrations of this kind.

The central idea seems always to have been that of the old Saturnalia, i.e. a brief social revolution, in which power, dignity or impunity is conferred for a few hours upon those ordinarily in a subordinate position. Whether it took the form of the boy bishop or the subdeacon conducting the cathedral office, the parody must always have trembled on the brink of burlesque, if not of the profane. We can trace the same idea at St. Gall in the tenth century, where a student, on the thirteenth of December each year, enacted the part of the abbot. It will be sufficient here to notice that the continuance of the celebration of the Feast of Fools was finally forbidden under the very severest penalties by the Council of Basle in 1435, and that this condemnation was supported by a strongly-worded document issued by the theological faculty of the University of Paris in 1444, as well as by numerous decrees of various provincial councils. In this way it seems that the abuse had practically disappeared before the time of the Council of Trent.

A very large number of monographs and papers in the proceedings of learned societies have been devoted to this subject. Many of these are quoted by CHAMBERS The Medieval Stage, I., 274-419 (London, 1903), who himself deals with the matter more exhaustively than any other writer. The best short article on the whole question, as Chambers attests, is that of DREVES, Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XLVII, 571-587 (Freiburg, 1894). See also LEBER, Collection des meilleures dissertations, vols. IX an X (Paris, 1832); CLÉMENT, Histoire Générale de la Musique Religeuse (Paris, 1890), pp. 122 sqq.; WALTER, Das Eselsfest (Vienna, 1885). There is also an excellent article by HEUSER in the Kirchenlex., s.v. Feste. For further bibliographical references consult CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie, s.v. Fous. Many articles written on the subject are more lampoons directed against the medieval Church, and betray a complete ignorance of the facts. An article entitled Festum Stultorum in the Nineteenth Century (June, 1905) is a typical specimen.

HERBERT THURSTON

Ambrogio Foppa

Generally known as CARADOSS0.

Italian goldsmith, sculptor, and die sinker, b. at Mondonico in the province of Como, 1445, according to some authorities, and according to others in Pavia, the same year; d. about 1527. It is possible that this artist is not correctly known as Ambrogio, but that his Christian name was Cristoforo. He was in the service of Lodovico Il Moro, Duke of Milan, for some years, and executed for him an exceedingly fine medal and several pieces of goldsmith's work. Later on he is heard of in Rome, working for Popes Julius II and Leo X. His will was executed in 1526 and he is believed to have died in the following year. Cellini refers at some length to a medal struck by him in Rome, having upon it a representation of Bramante and his design for St. Peter's, and he speaks of him as "the most excellent goldsmith of that time, who has no equal in the execution of dies". He is believed to have been responsible for the terra-cotta reliefs in the sacristy of San Satiro, works which in their remarkable beauty are almost equal to the productions of Donatello. In addition to the Bramante and Moro medals three others are attributed to him, one representing Julius II, another the fourth Duke of Milan, Francesco Sforza, and the third Gian Giacomo Trivulzio (1448-1518).

A large number of examples of fine goldsmith's work in the sacristies of the various churches of Italy are attributed to Foppa with more or less uncertainty. They especially include reliquaries, morses, and crosiers. He was responsible for a papal mitre. A drawing of this tiara, made for Julius II, is in the print room at the British Museum and was executed at the instance of an English collector named John Talman. An inaccurate engraving of it by George Vertue is also in existence, and this was reproduced by Muntz in his article on the papal tiara. He declares that the pope told his master of ceremonies that it cost two hundred thousand ducats. This wonderful work of art survived the sack of Rome through the accident of its being in pawn at the time, but was deliberately broken up and refashioned by Pope Pius VI. (See Thurston in the "Burlington Magazine" for October, 1895.) Foppa is believed to have designed several perdent jewels, but there is a good deal of uncertainty at present respecting his goldsmith's work, and but little can be attributed to him with anything like authority.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

John Forbes

Capuchin, b. 1570; d. 1606. His father, John, eighth Lord Forbes, being a Protestant, and his mother, Lady Margaret Gordon, daughter of the fourth Earl of Huntly, a Catholic, John followed the religion of his father, while his elder brother was educated a Catholic. To preserve his Faith the latter went to Brussels and there entered the Capuchin order. His letters and the influence of a maternal uncle, James Gordon S.J. led John into the Catholic Church, 1587. To recover his son to Protestantism Lord Forbes affianced him to a noble Protestant lady. On the eve of the marriage John, disguised as a shepherd, fled and, having eluded his father's spies, landed in Lille. Pressed into the English army, he escaped, was arrested by Spanish militia, imprisoned at Antwerp, but finally released. After some delay he was admitted to the Capuchin Order, August, 1593, at Tournai and took the name of his deceased brother, Archangel. Persevering in spite of persuasion, force, and the strategems of friends to the contrary, he completed his studies, was ordained a priest and after refusing an appointment as guardian, was sent as chaplain to the Spanish garrison at Dendermond. Mindful of his own countrymen he wrote to his kinsman and companion in youth, James VI of Scotland, setting forth the claims of the Catholic religion. Learning of his whereabouts, many countrymen visited him, eighteen of whom he converted to Catholicity, also three hundred soldiers. To his great delight he was appointed missionary Apostolic to Scotland, but succumbed to an epidemic at Dendermond. He is said to have written an account of his conversion, though it was never published. His mother spent her declining years near her son; his betrothed became a nun in Rome.

JOHN M. LENHART

Comte de Charles-Auguste-Marie-Joseph Forbin-Janson

A Bishop of Nancy and Toul, founder of the Association of the Holy Childhood, born in Paris, France, 3 Nov., 1785; died near Marseilles, 12 July, 1844. He was the second son of Count Michel Palamède de Forbin-Janson and of his wife Cornélie Henriette, princess of Galéan. He was a Knight of Malta from childhood, and a soldier at sixteen. Napoleon I made him Auditor of the Council of State in 1805. His family and the aristocracy looked forward to a most brilliant career as a statesman for him, but he surprised all by entering the seminary of St-Sulpice in the spring of 1808. He was ordained priest in Savoy in 1811, and was made Vicar-General of the Diocese of Chambéry, but eventually determined to become a missionary. Pius VII advised him to remain in France where missionary work was needed. He heeded the advice, and with his friend the Abbé de Rauzan, founded the Missionaires de France and preached with great success in all parts of his native land. In 1817 he was sent to Syria on a mission, returned to France in 1819, and again took up the work of a missionary until 1823 when he was appointed Bishop of Nancy and Toul, and was consecrated in Paris, 6 June, 1824, by the Archbishop of Rouen; Bishop Cheverus of Boston, U.S.A., was a consecrator and Bishop Fenwick of Cincinnati a witness. The French Government did not cease persecuting him for his refusal to sign the Gallican Declaration of 1682; finally, he was obliged to leave France in 1830, but succeeded in getting his own choice of a coadjutor bishop by threatening to return to Nancy. Every good cause appealed to his priestly heart, every good work to his purse. He aided Pauline Jaricot in the establishment of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. At the request of Bishop Flaget and Bishop Purcell, Gregory XVI sent him on a missionary tour through the United States of America in 1839.

During his two years stay in that country, he travelled far and wide giving missions to the people and retreats to the clergy. Louisiana was the first conspicuous field of his zeal, and he brought its Catholic people to the sacraments in numbers which have hardly been equalled since. On his way thither, he contributed one-third of the money with which the Fathers of Mercy bought Spring Hill College (now a Jesuit College, near Mobile, Alabama). All the large cities of the country, from New York to Dubuque; from New Orleans to Quebec, were witnesses of his zeal. More at home in Canada where his mother-tongue was spoken, he did wonderful missionary work, and some events regarded as supernatural keep his memory alive to this day among the French-Canadian people. He attended the Fourth Provincial Council of Baltimore. His last visit in the United States was to Philadelphia, in November, 1841, when he assisted at the consecration of Dr. Kenrick as coadjutor Bishop of St. Louis. He left New York for France in December, 1841, and the next year visited Rome to give an account of his mission in America. Gregory XVI named him a Roman Count and Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, "because of his wonderful zeal for the propagation and defence of the Catholic Faith in the United States of America". On his return to France he founded (1843) the Society of the Holy Childhood, and spent that, and a part of the following year in spreading this good work through France, Belgium, and England. Death came to him unexpectedly at his family castle of Aygalades near Marselles.

DE RIVIÈRE, Vie de Mgr de Forbin-Janson, Missionnaire, évêque de Nancy et de Toul, primat de Lorraine, fondateur de la Ste Enfance (Paris, 1892); MAES, Life of Bishop de Forbin-Janson in America, Manuscripts; SHEA, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1904).

CAMILLUS P. MAES.

Egidio Forcellini

Latin lexicographer, b. at Fener, near Treviso, Italy, 26 Aug., 1688; d. at Padua, 4 April, 1768. His parents were poor, so that he was deprived of the opportunities of an early education, and he was of mature age when in 1704 he entered the seminary at Padua. There his ability and industry soon attracted the attention of his teacher, Facciolati, who secured his assistance in his lexicographical work. Forcellini collaborated with his master in revising the so-called "Calepinus", the Latin dictionary, in seven languages, of the monk Ambrosius Calepinus. While engaged in this work, Forcellini is said to have conceived the idea of an entirely new Latin lexicon, the most comprehensive ever compiled. Towards the end of 1718, under the direction of Facciolati, he began the laborious task of reading through the entire body of Latin literature as well as the whole collection of inscriptions. His labours were interrupted in 1724, when he was called to Ceneda, where he became professor of rhetoric and director of the seminary. He resumed his work on the lexicon on his recall to Padua in 1731. It was not until three years after Forcellini's death that this great lexicon, on which he had spent nearly forty years of untiring industry, and which is the basis of all the Latin lexicons now in use, was published at Padua in four folio volumes under the title, "Totius Latinitatis Lexicon". In it are given both the Italian and the Greek equivalents of every word, together with copious citations from the literature. There is an English edition by Bailey in two volumes (London, 1828). The latest complete edition is that of De Vit (Prato, 1858-87). (See LATIN LITERATURE.)

EDMUND BURKE

Andrew Foreman

A Scottish prelate, of good border family; b. at Hatton, near Berwick-on-Tweed; d. 1522. His talents marked him out for early promotion in his ecclesiastical career; through the influence of King James IV, he soon became a prothonotary Apostolic and was employed on various important missions. The king sent him in 1497 with two other envoys to conclude the truce of Aytoun with Henry VII of England, and four years later he was empowered to negotiate for the marriage of King James with King Henry's daughter Margaret. By 1502 Foreman was Bishop of Moray (for which see, notwithstanding the protest of the primate, he procured exemption from the metropolitan jurisdiction of St. Andrews); he was also "commendatory" abbot of important monasteries both in Scotland and England. Appointed ambassador to Henry VIII in 1509, he was commissioned by his sovereign to try to bring about universal peace with a view to a new crusade. King Louis of France, after concluding an alliance with the King of Scots against England, made Foreman Archbishop of Bourges, and it was Pope Julius II's intention to raise him to the cardinalate. The successor of Julius, Leo X, did not carry out this intention, but nominated Foreman in 1514 Archbishop of St. Andrews and legate a latere. He received at the same time the Abbey of Dunfermline in commendam, and seems to have held also at one time or another the rich Abbeys of Kilwinning, Dryburgh, and Arbroath. The new primate's eight years' tenure of his see was marked by vigorous administration; and he did much to consolidate the episcopal authority, procuring the restoration to his province of the Dioceses of Dunkeld and Dunblane, and holding an important synod, the enactments of which, still extant, throw an important light on the condition of the Scottish Church immediately before the Reformation. These statutes testify to the primate's zeal for the amelioration of the state of the clergy, for the reform of abuses, the advancement of learning, and the augmentation of the solemnity of the services of the Church. Archbishop Foreman was buried in Dunfermline Abbey.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Laurenz Forer

Controversialist, b. at Lucerne, 1580; d. at Ratisbon, 7 January, 1659. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty, in Landshut, and made part of his studies under Fathers Laymann and Tanner. He taught philosophy at Ingolstadt (1615-1619), and theology, moral and controversial, for six years at Dillingen. In the latter institution he held also the office of chancellor for several years. He spent the years 1632-1643 in the Tyrol, whither he had withdrawn with his illustrious penitent Heinrich von Knoringen, Bishop of Augsburg, on account of the inroads of the Swedes. Forer visited Rome (1645-1646) as the representative of the province of Upper Germany in the eighth congregation. He became rector of the college of Lucerne in 1650. Father Sommervogel enumerates sixty-two titles of publications from the pen of Forer; though not all of them are very voluminous, they show at least the writer's versatility and erudition, as well as his zeal for the integrity and the honour of the Catholic Faith. He wrote one or more treatises each against the apostates Reihing and de Dominis, against Melchior Nicolai, Hottinger, Kallisen, Schopp, Molinos, Haberkorn, Voet, Hoe, the Ubiquists, and others. Such works as "Lutherus thaumaturgus" (Dillingen, 1624), "Septem characteres Lutheri" (Dillingen, 1626), "Quaestio ubinam ante Lutherum protestantium ecclesia fuerit" (Pt. I, Amberg, 1653; P. II, Ingolstadt, 1654), "Bellum ubiquisticum vetus et novum inter ipsos Lutheranos bellatum et needum debellatum" (Dillingen, 1627) are directed against all Protestants. Others, as "Anatomia anatomiae Societatis Jesu" (Innsbruck, 1634), "Mantissa Ant-anatomiae Jesuiticae" (Innsbruck, 1635; Cologne, 1635), "Grammaticus Proteus, arcanorum Societatis Jesu Daedalus" (Ingolstadt, 1636), "Appendix ad grammaticum Proteum" (Ingolstadt, 1636), attack the enemies of the Society of Jesus; finally, two of his works, written for Catholics, "Disputirkunst fur die einfaltigen Catholischen" (Ingolstadt, 1656) and "Leben Jesu Christi" (Dillingen, 1650-1658), have been re-edited and republished at Wurzburg (1861) and Ratisbon (1856).

A.J. MAAS

Catholic Orders of Foresters

I. On 30 July, 1879, some members of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., desiring to have a Catholic fraternal insurance society, organized one on the plan of the Foresters' courts and called it the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters. It was so chartered, and its membership was confined to the State of Massachusetts, except in one instance, where a court was formed at Providence, Rhode Island. On 1 January, 1909, the official report stated that there were 235 courts organized, with a membership of 27,757. Of the members 9679 were women. The insurance in force on 31 Dec., 1908, was $27,757,000.

II. On 24 May, 1883, a number of Catholics of Chicago, Illinois, taking up the plan of this Massachusetts society, organized on the same lines the Catholic Order of Foresters of Illinois. A flat all-around death assessment of one dollar was adopted, and men of all ages were admitted to membership at the same rate. Later, when courts were established in a number of other States and in Canada, an international convention in 1895 adopted a graded system of assessment insurance. Catholics between eighteen and forty-five years of age are eligible for membership. From the date of organization to 1 June, 1908, it paid out $10,639,936 for death claims, and $2,500,000 in funeral and sick benefits. It had in April, 1909, 1600 courts and a membership of 136,212 distributed over twenty-six States and the Dominion of Canada. The main offices are at Chicago, Illinois. The official organ, "The Catholic Forester", is published at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The word Illinois in the original title of the organization was dropped in 1888, as the membership had then extended beyond the limits of that State. This society is not affiliated with the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters.

III. A Women's Catholic Order of Foresters was organized in 1892 at Chicago, having for its object benevolent co-operation among Catholic women with assessment life-insurance at low rates. It has a membership of 54,350, with courts scattered over many of the States. The main offices are at Chicago.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN.

Forgery, Forger

If we accept the definition usually given by canonists, forgery (Lat. falsum) differs very slightly from fraud. "Forgery", says Ferraris, who claims that his definition is the usually accepted one, "is a fraudulent interference with, or alteration of, truth, to the prejudice of a third person". It consists in the deliberate untruthfulness of an assertion, or in the deceitful presentation of an object, and is based on an intention to deceive and to injure while using the externals of honesty. Forgery is truly a falsehood and a fraud, but it is something more. It includes fraudulent misdemeanours in matters regulated by the law, and endangering the public peace. These misdemeanours are divided by canon law writers into three classes — according as the crime is committed by word, by writing, or by deed. The principal crime in each of these classes being false witness, falsification of public documents, and counterfeiting money. A fourth category consists in making use of such forgery, and is equivalent to forgery proper. This classification, while slightly superficial, is exact, and presupposes the fundamental malice of the crime in question, viz., that it is prejudicial to public security and injurious to the interests of society at large, rather than to those of the individual.

Social order is seriously affected by false witness, which cripples the operation of justice; by the change or alteration of public documents, which hinders a right and proper administration of public affairs, and lastly, by the coining of base money, which hampers trade and commerce. If forgery is committed by public officials in violation of their professional duties, the crime becomes more serious, and more prejudicial to public order. The interests of private individuals, therefore, while not excluded, are secondary when this offence is in question, and it is for this reason that the penalties incurred by forgery, or complicity therein, are independent of the amount of damage it inflicts on individuals. Oral forgeries, e. g. false oaths, false witness (canonists add the crime of the judge who knowingly pronounces an unjust sentence), are treated under TRIAL; OATH; WITNESS; JUDGE. On the other hand false coinage does not immediately concern ecclesiastical law, though some attention is paid it in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" and in various canon law treatises. John XXII punished false coinage by excommunication (Extrav. "Gradiens", Joan. XXII, de crimine falsi) and compared forgers to alchemists (Extrav. "Spondent", inter comm.). In many dioceses this crime was long a reserved sin (e.g. in Naples; "Prompta Bibliotheca", s. v.; see Neapolitan edition of Ferraris, s. v. Falsum, n. 35). By such penal measures the ecclesiastical authority merely assisted in suppressing a crime gravely prejudicial to civil welfare; it did not come before it as a crime against ecclesiastical law.

We are here concerned only with forgery properly so-called, i. e. the falsification of public documents and writings, especially Apostolic letters. What is here said of latter, is also applicable, in due measure, to all public documents emanating from the Roman Curia or episcopal courts. The canonical legislation on this matter is better understood when we recall that the more usual form of this crime, and the source of judicial inquiries and consequent penalties, was the production of absolutely false documents and the alteration of authentic decisions, for the sake of certain advantages, e.g. a benefice, or a favourable verdict.

The forging of documents for purely historical purposes, with no intention of influencing administrative or legislative authority, does not fall within our scope. (For an account of several such forgeries see A. Giry, "Manuel de diplomatique", Paris, 1894, II, 861-87, and Wattenbach, "Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen", 9th ed. appendix.) We are concerned only with the falsification of Apostolic Letters, the only form of forgery that incurs excommunication ipso facto specially reserved to the pope. The most serious form of forgery is that committed by a public functionary charged to draw up or authenticate official documents, who violates his professional duties, by the fabrication of false documents, by forging a signature, by fraudulent use of an official seal, a stamp, or the like. There is no precise text in canon law punishing these crimes, and canonists always refer to Roman law, especially to the Lex Cornelia "de crimine falsi" (ff. XLVIII). Nevertheless in ecclesiastical law they are serious crimes; and instances might be given of officials of the Roman Curia who suffered death for such forgeries. Domenico of Viterbo and Francesco Maldente were tried and executed for this crime in 1489. They had forged, among other documents, a Bull authorizing the priests of Norway to celebrate Mass without wine (Benedict XIV, "De Beatif.", II, c. XXXII, n. 2; Pastor, "History of the Popes", tr. V, 351). Again the subdatarius, Francesco Canonici, called Mascabruno, was condemned to death on 5 April, 1652, for many forgeries discovered only on the eve of his elevation to the cardinalate.

Canon law deals mainly with the attempt to put forgeries to a specific use. It connects forgery and the use of forged documents, on the presumption that he who would make use of such documents must be either the author or instigator of the forgery. In canon law, forgery consists not only in the fabrication or substitution of an entirely false document, "as when a false bulla, or seal, is affixed to a false letter" (Licet v, "De crimine falsi"), but even by partial substitution, or by any alteration affecting the sense and bearing of an authentic document or any substantial point, such as names, dates, signature, seal, favour granted, by erasure, by scratching out or by writing one word over another, and the like. The classical and oft-commented text on this matter is the chapter Licet v, "De crimine falsi" in which Innocent III (1198) points out to the bishop and chapter of Milan nine species of forgery which had come under his notice. This famous instruction was given in order to enable his correspondents to guard against future fraud. Following his teaching the gloss on this chapter enumerates among the six points a judge should examine into in order to discover a forgery:

In other words a document is suspect,

• If its outward appearance differs greatly from the usual appearance of such documents.
• If the style varies from the usual manner of the Curia. Chapter iv, "De crimine falsi" gives us an example of this: Innocent III declares a Bull false wherein the pope addresses a bishop as "Dear Son" and not as "Venerable Brother", or in which any other person than a bishop is styled "Venerable Brother" instead of "Dear Son", or in which the plural vos is used to address a single individual.
• If the thread which ties the leaden seal to the Bull is broken.
• If the parchment bears traces of a doubtful origin (just as we distinguish the water-marks and letter-heads of modern documents).
• If there are any erasures, or words scratched out.
• If the seal is not intact, or is not clearly defined.

If a judge discovers an evident forgery he ought to repudiate the document and punish the guilty party; but in case he considers it merely doubtful he ought to make inquiries at the office of the Roman Curia which is supposed to have issued it.

Substitution of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages. In the chapter Dura vi, "De crimine falsi", written in 1198, (pars decisa), Innocent III relates that he had discovered and imprisoned forgers who had prepared a number of false Bulls, bearing forged signatures either of his predecessor or of himself. To obviate abuses, he orders under pain of excommunication or suspension that pontifical Bulls be received only from the hands of the pope or of the officials charged to deliver them. He orders bishops to investigate suspicious letters, and to make known, to all those having forged letters, that they are bound to destroy them, or to hand them over within twenty days, under pain of excommunication. The same pope legislated severely against forgery and the use of forged documents. In the chapter Ad falsariorum, vii, "De crimine falsi", written in 1201, forgers of Apostolic Letters, whether the actual criminals or their aiders and abetters, are alike excommunicated, and if clerics, are ordered to be degraded and given over to the secular arm.

Whoever makes use of Apostolic Letters is invited to assure himself of their authenticity, since to use forged letters is punished in the case of clerics by privation of benefice and rank, and in the case of laymen by excommunication. The excommunication threatened by Innocent III, and extended to the forgery of supplicas or pontifical dispensations, was incorporated in the Bull "In Cœna Domini" (no. 6), and passed thence with some modifications into the constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis," where it is number 9 among the excommunications latœ sententiœ specially reserved to the pope. It affects "all falsification of Apostolic Letters, even in the form of Briefs, and supplicas concerning favours sought or dispensations asked for, which have been signed by the Sovereign Pontiff, or the vice-chancellors of the Roman Church or their deputies, or by order of the pope", also all those who falsely publish Apostolic Letters, even those in the form of Brief; lastly, all those who falsely sign these documents with the name of the Sovereign Pontiff, the vice-chancellor or their deputies. The documents in question here are of two sorts:

• Apostolic Letters, in which the pope himself speaks, whether they are in the form of Bulls or Briefs (q. v.);
• Supplicas or requests addressed to the pope to obtain a favour, and to which, in proof that the request is granted, the pope or the vice-chancellor or some other official attaches his signature.

It is from these supplicas thus signed that the official document conveying the concession is drawn up. Consequently rescripts of the Roman Congregations and of other offices, which are not signed by the pope or by his order, do not come under this heading.

The acts of falsification herein punished by excommunication are fewer than formerly. In the first place, the principal crime is the only one dealt with; the aiders and abettors of the forgery are not mentioned. In the next place, by a strict interpretation, allowable in penal matters but; certainly opposed to the spirit of the Decretals of Innocent III, recent canonists exempt from the ipso facto censure forgers of entire Apostolic Letters, and bring under it only those who seriously alter authentic documents. It is certain, in any case, that the word fabricantes of the Bull "In Cœna Domini" becomes publicantes in the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis". There are therefore three acts contemplated by the latter text; the falsification, in the strict sense of the word, of Apostolic Letters and supplicas; the publication of false Apostolic Letters; the forging of signatures to supplicas. The "publication" which incurs this censure is not the material divulgation of a document, but presupposes that such document is offered as, and affirmed to be, authentic. Supplicas with forged signatures it would be useless to publish since they cannot take the place of the official document conveying the concession; but the officials issuing Apostolic Letters on the strength of such signed supplicas would have been misled by the false signature. It must be remembered that all other forms of forgery which escape the ipso facto excommunication are subject to penalties and censures " ferendœ sententiœ" according to the gravity of the case.

To have their full official weight before a tribunal, public documents must be presented either in the original, or in copies certified by some public officer. Hence the note of falsification does not attach to reproductions devoid of all guarantee of authenticity; nevertheless such reproductions are sometimes seriously criminal because of the perverse intention of their authors. Leitner ("Præl. Jur. Can." lib. V, tit. xx, in a note) gives two examples of fraudulent reproductions of this nature. Frederick II of Prussia forged a Brief of Clement XIII, and dated it 30 January, 1759, by which the pope was made to send his congratulations and a blessed sword to the Austrian Marshal Daun, after the battle of Hochkirch. A Bull purporting to be by Pius IX, dated 28 May, 1873, modifying the law in vigour for the election of a pope was forged, with the connivance at least, of the Prussian Government. Another false document, published by many newspapers in 1905, authorized the marriage of priests in South America, but no one placed any credence in it. (See BULLS AND BRIEFS.)

All canonical commentaries on the title De crimine falsi; Decret., lib. V. tit. XX; Extravag. of John XXII and commentary; FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Falsum; all commentaries on the Constitution Apostolicœ Sedis, especially PENNACHI, t. I, appendix VIII, p. 293.

A. BOUDINHON

Forli

(FOROLIVIENSIS)

Diocese in the province of Romagna (Central Italy); suffragan of Ravenna. The city of Forli, the ancient Forum Livii, is situated between the rivers Ronco and Montone, and was founded in 206 b.c. by the consul M. Livius Salinator; destroyed 88 b.c. during the civil war of Marius and Sulla; and rebuilt by the prætor Livius Clodius. During the seventh and eighth centuries it was often seized by the Lombards (665, 728, 742), until its incorporation with the Papal States in 757. In the medieval struggle between the papacy and the empire it was Ghibelline. On the downfall of the Hohenstaufen, Simone Mestaguerra had himself proclaimed Lord of Forli (1257). He was succeeded by Maghinardo Pagano, Uguccione della Faggiuola (1297), and others, until in 1302 the Ordelaffi came into power. More than once this family sought to escape from the overlordship of the Holy See, and was therefore several times expelled, e. g. in 1327-29 and again in 1359-1375 (Gil d'Albornoz). Forli was seized in 1488 by Visconti and in 1499 by Cæsar Borgia, after whose death it was again directly subject to the pope. In 1708 it was sacked by the Austrians.

St. Mercurialis is venerated as the first bishop, and is said to belong to the Apostolic Age; it is certain, however, that he is identical with the Mercurialis present at the Council of Rimini in 359. The Christian religion, however, must have been introduced, and a see established, much earlier. Among the illustrious bishops the following may be enumerated: Alessandro (1160), who built the episcopal palace; Fra Bartolomeo da Sanzetto (1351), compelled to flee by Francesco degli Ordelaffi; Giovanni Capparelli (1427), banished by Antonio degli Ordelaffi; Luigi Pirano (1437), who took an active part in the Council of Ferrara. The following were natives of Forli: Blessed Jacopo Salomonio (died 1314), a Dominican; Blessed Pellegrino Laziosi (died 1345), a Servite; Blessed Marcolino Amanni (died 1397), a Dominican. The Cathedral of Santa Croce existed as early as 562; in 1419 Martin V ordered restorations that were completed in 1475; and it was again enlarged in 1841. A noteworthy part of the cathedral is the chapel of the Madonna del Fuoco; the sacred image contained there was formerly in a private house, where it remained unharmed during a fire. Also worthy of mention are: the church of San Mercuriale, with its celebrated belltower, the work of Francesco Deddi (1428); San Biagio, with frescoes by Melozzo da Poril and Palmegiani, and an "Immaculate Conception" by Guido Reni; Santa Maria dei servi (built by Blessed Pellegrino, buried there), with frescoes of the school of Giotto. The seminary has a rich collection of 500 Aldine first editions and of pictures. Near Forli is the shrine of Santa Maria delle Grazie of Forno. The diocese has 61 parishes, 60,000 inhabitants, 3 male and 6 female educational institutions, 4 religious houses of men, and 7 of women, and a weekly Catholic paper.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d' Italia (Venice, 1844), II, 307-67; MARCHESI, Compendium histor. celeberrimœ civitalis Forliviensis (Forli, 1678); ROSETTI, Vite degli uomini illustri Forlivesi (Forli, 1858-61).

U. BENIGNI.

Form

(Lat. forma; Gr. eidos, morphe, he kata ton logon ousia, to ti en einai: Aristotle)

The original meaning of the term form, both in Greek and Latin, was and is that in common use — eidos (derived from eido, root rid, an obsolete form from which comes the second aorist eidon, I see, akin to Latin video), being translated, that which is seen, shape, etc., with secondary meanings derived from this, as form, sort, particular, kind, nature. It is also used by Plato to express kind, both as genus and species. From the primary and common signification given above, an easy transition is made to that in which it comes to signify the intrinsic determinant of quantity, from which figure or shape results, and thence to the further peripatetic and scholastic usage as the intrinsic determinant of anything that is determinable. Thus the term is employed even in such expressions as "form of contract", "form of worship", and as theological form, "form of words" (the theological statement of dogmatic truth); sacramental form (see below). In its more strict philosophical usage, however, it is limited to its signification of the intrinsic principle of existence in any determinate essence. This covers form, whether accidental or substantial. But there is a further extended use of the term form, derived from the fact that in all its previous significations it stands for the intrinsic constitutive element of the species, accidental or substantial, in sensible entities. Hence, all species or nature, whether in itself material or existent as immaterial, is called a form, though not, in the strict meaning of the term, a formal principle. In this manner, it is not unusual to speak of the angelic form, or even of the form of God, as signifying the nature, or essence, of the angel or of God. Hence, form is sometimes also used as a synonym of essence and nature. Thus also the form, or formal cause of Aristotle's theory of causality, is identified with the essence (to ti en einai), as the form is that in virtue of which the essence, even of material and composite entities, is precisely what it is. This point will be further considered in the paragraph treating of the development of the idea of form.

The various kinds of form recognized in philosophy include the following, of which brief definitions are given. Substantial form, in material entities, is that which determines or actuates materia prima (see MATTER) to a specific substantial nature or essence, as the form of hydrogen, a rose, horse, or man. It is defined by Aristotle as the first entelechy of a physical body (De Anima, II, i), and may be of such a nature that it is merely the determinant of matter (corporeal substantial form), or it may exceed, as it were, the potentiality of the determined matter (spiritual or subsistent form). Accidental form is that which determines a substance to one or other of the accidental modes as quantified, qualified, relationed, etc. (see CATEGORY). As the existence of an "accident" is a secondary one, consisting in an inexistence of inherence, an existent substance, as subject of inherence, is always connoted. A separated form is one which exists apart from the matter it actuates. No accidental form can thus exist, nor can corporeal substantial forms. The separated form is that of man — the human soul. Inherent form is an accidental form modifying or determining substance. The term is employed to emphasize the distinction of accidental from substantial forms. These latter do not inhere in matter, but are co-principles with it in the constitution of material substances. Forms of knowledge, according to Kant, are forms of;

• (1) intuition (space and time), and
• (2) thought (the twelve categories in which all judgments are conditioned: unity, plurality, totality; reality, negation, limitation; substantiality, causality, relation; possibility, existence, necessity).

They are all a priori and under them, as content, fall all our intuitions and judgments. The logical system of Kant is generally known as "formal" logic, from this connexion. So also that of Herbart, whose logical treatment of thought consists in the isolation of the content from its psychological and metaphysical implications. The point is related to the whole subject of epistemology (q. v.). The attempt to ascertain the nature, extent, and validity of knowledge was made by Kant through a criticism, not of the content of thought, but of its essence. It is an endeavour to examine not the "facta of reason, but reason itself. . . .".

The development of the philosophical doctrine of form may be said to have begun with Aristotle. It provided a something fixed and immutable amidst what appears to be involved in a series of perpetual changes, thus obviating the difficulty of the Heraclitean position as to the validity of knowledge. The panta chorei destroys the possibility of a true knowledge of things as they are. Thus Aristotle may be looked upon as the one above all others who laid a solid base for any true system of epistemology. Like Plato, he saw the radical scepticism implied in an assertion of unending change. But unlike the doctrine of the former, providing unalterable but separated ideas as the ideal counterpart of sensible things, that of Aristotle, by its distinction of matter and form, makes it possible to abstract the unalterable and eternal from its concrete and mutable manifestation in individuals. Aristotle, however, identifies the form with the essence; and this because the substance is what it is (essentially) by reason of the substantial form. It would be a mistake, none the less, to suppose that his doctrine leaves no room for a distinction between the two. Indeed Grote clearly shows that "the Aristotelean analysis thus brings out, in regard to each individual substance (or hoc aliquid, to use his phrase), a triple point of view:

• the form;
• the matter;
• the compound or aggregate of the two;

In other words the inseparable Ens which carries us out of the domain of logic or abstraction into that of the concrete or reality" (Grote, "Aristotle", ed Bain and Robertson, II, 182). The theory is a fundamental one in Aristotle's "Phiosophia Prima", presenting, as it does, a phase, and that perhaps the most important, of the distinction between the potential and the actual. It is no less fundamental to the philosophical and theological system of St. Thomas Aquinas which is representative of the Christian School. Substantial form is an act, the principle of activity, and by it things actually exist (Summa I, Q. lxvi) as they are. Moreover it is one. Thus man exists as man in virtue of his substantial form, the soul.

That the rational soul is the unique form of the body is of faith (Council of Vienne; V Lateran; Brief of Pius IX, 15 June, 1857). Man is learned or healthy in virtue of the accidental (qualifying) forms of learning or health that "inhere" in him. These, without detriment to his humanity, may be present or absent. Both kinds of form, it may be noted, though they specify their resultant essences, or quasi-essences, are individuated by the quantified matter in the one case, and the subject of inhesion in the other. Thus, while the accidental or substantial corporeal form falls back into mere potentiality when it does not actuate its subject, the incorporeal subsistent form of man, though continuing to exist when separated from the body, retains its habitude, or relationship, to the matter by which it was individuated. This doctrine is usual in the School, but it is interesting to observe that Scotus taught, in distinction to St. Thomas's doctrine of one substantial form, a plurality of form in individuals. Thus, e. g while according to Aquinas man is all that he is substantially (corporeal, animal, rational, Socrates) in virtue of his one soul, according to Scotus each determination (generic or specific) superadds a form. In this way, man would be corporeal in virtue of a corporeal form, animal in virtue of a superadded animal form, etc., until he became Socrates, in virtue of the ultimate personal form (socrateitas). Occam also distinguished between a rational and a sensitive soul in man, and taught that the latter was corruptible. The terminology of the Scholastic doctrine of form is employed by the Church in dogmatic definitions, such as that of the Council of Vienne cited above, and in her teaching with regard to the sacraments. Thus, while the matter of the sacrament of baptism, for example, is water; the sacramental form consists of the words ego te baptizo, etc., pronounced by the minister as he baptizes. The same terminology is adopted in the exposition of moral theology, as in the distinction of formal and material sin.

The principal alternative systems professing to give an account of corporeal substances are those of Descartes, Locke, Mill and Bain, the scientists (Atomists, etc.). Descartes places the essence of bodies in extension three dimensions, thus identifying quantified substance with quantity and in no way accounting for substantial differences. Each substance possesses a "pre-eminent attribute, which constitutes its nature and essence and to which all others relate; thus extension", etc. To this Locke adds the qualities of the substance, making its essence consist of its primary qualities, or properties (extension, figure and mobility, divisibility and activity). Locke's doctrine, which seems to be the opinion of many contemporary men of science, labours under the same grave inconvenience as that of Descartes, as, by a hysteron-proteron, it accounts for the nature of a given substance by its accidents. Mill and Bain, considering substance from a psychological rather than an ontological viewpoint, define it by its relation to sense perception as an external and permanent possibility of our sensations. This view is not unlike that just alluded to, inasmuch as it expresses not the essence of bodies but at most their activity as permanently capable of evoking sensations in us. Akin to this is the doctrine of positivism, explaining the nature of "matter" as a series of sensations.

The topic of form is, as has been seen, closely connected with epistemology. As was said, a weapon for the defeat of scepticism and Heracliteanism was provided by Aristotle in his doctrine of forms and essences; Aquinas, also, would have our knowledge to be of the eternal essences, though derived by way of contemplation of contingent individuals. Kant, on the other hand, denies the possibility of such knowledge of the Thing-in-itself, and, establishing a set of mental forms (see above) into which our experience of concrete beings may be fitted, inaugurates an epistemology of the phenomenal. Hegel begins with the idea of pure being, identical, because of its entire lack of content, with nothing; and thence evolves, on idealistic lines, his theory of knowledge. The "realism" of Herbart is an attempt to reconcile the contradictions that arise in the formal conceptions presented in experience. His epistemological principle is, therefore, a critical and methodical transformation of such conceptions, issuing in the position that a multiplicity of simple, real essences exists, each possessing a single simple quality. Several of the modern systems (Pragmatism, Modernism, etc.), based directly and indirectly upon the teaching of Kant, assert a life-value or work-value to truth, inculcating an extreme relativity of knowledge and tending to pure subjectivism and solipsism. The scholastic theory of form is not that generally adopted by modern scientists, though it may noticed that it is not directly impugned by any scientific system. From Bacon on, empirical science has been progressive; and there is reason to believe that the theoretic science of to-day is in a state of transition in its attitude with regard to the constitution of "matter" (substance). The atomic and molecular theories, principally on account of the discovery of the radio-active substances and their properties, are being modified or abandoned (at any rate in so far as they were held to represent the real constitution of matter) in favour of the electronic, a theory not unlike that of the Jesuit Boscovich. In any case the former did not go farther than to provide a theoretic account of the construction of "matter", leaving the ultimate constitution of substance unexplained. At this point the theory of hylomorphism and the doctrine of substantial form would apply. For a critical examination of the Mechanicist position in this connexion the reader is referred to Nys's "Cosmologie". Furthermore, there is a noticeable reaction towards the scholastic position in recent biology, in which a growing school of neovitalism is making itself felt.

ARISTOTLE, Opera (Paris, 1629); ST. THOMAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72); DUNS SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); LORENZELLI, Institutiones Philosophiœ Theoreticœ (Rome, 1896); HARPER, Metaphysics of the School (London, 1879); MERCIER, Ontologie (Louvain, 1902); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); DE VORGES, La Perception et la Psychologie Thomiste (Paris, 1892); DE WULF, Scholastic Philosophy, tr. COFFEY (London, 1907); DALGAIRNS, The Holy Communion (Dublin, 1861); SHARPE AND AVELING, The Spectrum of Truth (London, 1908); WINDLE, What is Life? (London, 1908); GURY, Theologia Moralis (Prato, 1894); KANT, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Riga, 1781); HEGEL, Werke (Berlin, 1832); HERBART, Werke (Leipzig, 1850-2); HOBBES, Leviathan (London, 1651); IDEM, Elementorum Philosophiœ sectio prima. De Corpore (London, 1655); LOCKE, An Essay concerning Humane Understanding (London, 1714); CUDWORTH, A Treatise concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality (London, 1731); HUME, Works, ed. GREEN AND GROSE (London, 1878); HAMILTON, Lectures on Metophysic and Logic, ed. MANSEL AND VEITCH (Edinburgh, 1859-60); MANSEL, Prolegomena Logica, "An Inquiry into the Psychological Character of Logical Processes" (Oxford, 1851); MILL, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy (London, 1865); GROTE, Aristotle, ed. BAIN AND ROBERTSON (London, 1872); UEBERWEG, System der Logik (Bonn, 1857); IDEM, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Berlin, 1863-8).

FRANCIS AVELING

Henry Formby

Born 1816; died at Normanton Hall, Leicester, 12 March, 1884. His father, Henry Grenehalgh Formby, was the second son of Richard Formby of Formby Hall, Lancashire. The family had been Catholic until the eighteenth century, when, with the exception of a younger branch, they lost the Faith and closed the chapel of their fifteenth-century mansion. Henry Formby was educated at Clitheroe grammar-school, the Charterhouse School, London, and Brasenose College, Oxford, where he took his M. A. Having taken orders, he became vicar of Ruardean in Gloucestershire, where in 1843 he completed his first book, "A Visit to the East", and he showed the interest in ecclesiastical music that always characterized him in a pamphlet reprinted from "The English Churchman" called "Parochial Psalmody Considered" (1845). At this time he was profoundly influenced by the Oxford Movement, and soon after his friend Newman became a Catholic, he decided to resign his living and join the Church. His reception took place on 24 Jan., 1846, at Oscott, where he continued studying theology till he was ordained priest, 18 Sept., 1847. He was attached to St. Chad's Cathedral where the careful performance of plain chant has ever been a noted feature of the services, and while there he published three works on the subject: "The Catholic Christian's Guide to the Right Use of Christian Psalmody of the Psalter" (1847);" The Plain Chant the Image and Symbol of the Humanity of the Divine Redeemer and the Blessed Virgin Mary" (1848); and "The Roman Ritual and Its Canto Fermo, Compared with the Works of Modem Music, in Point of Efficiency and General Fitness for the Purpose of the Catholic Church" (1849). He also published "The Young Singer's Book of Songs" (1852), "School Songs and Poetry to Which Music Is Adapted" (1852), and he was one of the editors of the "First Series of Hymns and Songs for the Use of Catholic Schools and Families" (1853). Other works belonging to this period were: "The Duties and Happiness of Domestic Service" (1851), "The March of Intellect; or, The Alleged Hostility of the Catholic Church to the Diffusion of Knowledge Examined" (1852), and "State Rationalism in Education; An Examination into the Actual Working and Results of the System of the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland" (1854).

Besides his interest in ecclesiastical music, Father Formby had much at heart the use of pictures as a means of spreading knowledge of the Scriptures and Catholic doctrine. In furtherance of this purpose he published a series of carefully illustrated books. Chief among these was his very successful "Pictorial Bible and Church History Stories", which began with "Pictorial Bible Stories for the Young" (1856). An edition of the complete work was published in 1857, followed by another in three volumes with new illustrations in 1862, and an abridged one-volume edition in 1871. From 1857 to 1864 he took charge of the mission at Wednesbury; during which time he published "The Fifteen Mysteries of the Rosary" (1857), "The Life of St. Benedict" (1858), "The Parables of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (1858), "The Life of St. Patrick" (1862), all of which were illustrated. A sermon on "Our Lady of Salette" (1857) and "The Inquiry of a Retired Citizen into the Truth of the Catholic Religion" (1863) were also published while he was at Wednesbury. In 1864 he retired from active missionary work and withdrew to the Dominican priory at Hinckley in Leicestershire, where he spent the remaining twenty years of his life in issuing books and pamphlets and in helping to train the novices; For some years he edited "The Monthly Magazine of the Holy Rosary". His later publications included "The Cause of Poor Catholic Emigrants Pleaded" (1867); "Fleury's Historical Catechism continued to the Vatican Council" (1871); "The Book of the Holy Rosary" (1872); "De Annis Christi Tractatus" (1872); "Sacrum Septenarium" (1874); "The Children's Forget-me-not" (1877); "Compendium of the Philosophy of Ancient History"; "Little Book of the Martyrs of the City of Rome" (1877); "Five Lectures on the City of Rome" (1877); "Monotheism . . . the primitive Religion of the City of Rome" (1877); "Ancient Rome and Its Connection with Christian Religion" (Part I, 1880; Part II, unfinished at his death); "The Growing Unbelief of the Educated Classes" (1880); "Safeguards of Divine Faith in the Presence of Sceptics, Atheists, and Free-thinkers" (1882); "A Familiar Study of the Sacred Scripture", his last work. He also wrote a great number of minor devotional and educational books.

The Tablet (22 March, 1884); The Oscotian (June, 1885), IV, No. 14; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; PURCELL, Life of Cardinal Manning (London, 1896), II, 494.

EDWIN BURTON.

Pope Formosus

(891-896)

The pontificate of this pope belongs to that era of strife for political supremacy in Italy, which succeeded the disruption of the Carlovingian empire. Formosus was probably a native of Rome, and must have been born about 816, since, at his death, he is characterized by Vulgarius as an old man of eighty. The earliest historical information we possess concerning him is his nomination by Nicholas I as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto in 864. Nicholas must have reposed great confidence in the zeal and ability of the cardinal, since, when the Bulgarian prince Bogoris dispatched an embassy to Rome in 866 to submit a series of questions for papal decision, the pope appointed Formosus and Bishop Paulus of Populonia as his legates to Bulgaria. Formosus found such favour at the Bulgarian court that Bogoris petitioned Nicholas in 867 to appoint none other than him Archbishop of Bulgaria. To this proposal, however, Nicholas did not accede, since the canons forbade a bishop to leave his own see to undertake the government of another diocese, and Formosus returned to Rome. Bogoris afterwards renewed his petition to Hadrian II (867-872), the successor of Nicholas, but with no more favourable result. In 869, Hadrian sent Formosus with another bishop to France to assist the local bishops in allaying the domestic strife between King Lothair and his wife Theutberga. Although the death of Lothair on his return from Italy (8 Aug., 869) left the mission without an object, it gave rise to fresh complications among the Carlovingian rulers, and Formosus was sent with Bishop Gauderich of Velletri to Trent in 872, where Empress Engelberga and Louis the German were discussing the question of succession, Louis II having no male heir. At first Pope John VIII (872-882) reposed trust in Formosus, and, on the death of Louis II (875), employed him with two other bishops to convey his invitation to Charles the Bald, King of France, to come to Rome and receive the imperial crown from the hands of the pope. Charles obeyed the call, was crowned emperor on Christmas Day, 875, and before returning home, appointed Dukes Lambert and Guido of Spoleto to assist the pope against the Saracens. In 871, these nobles had been deprived of their dignities for conspiring against Louis II; but they were restored by Charles.

In the pope's entourage there were many who viewed with disapproval the coronation of Charles, and favoured the widowed Empress Engelberga and Louis the German. Fearing severe chastisement, these political opponents of the pope left Rome secretly to seek safety elsewhere. Cardinal Formosus was among the fugitives, as he dreaded the anger of the pope without knowing exactly whereby he had incurred the papal resentment. From the fact that Formosus had been sent by the pope as ambassador to Charles and now directed his flight to Abbot Hugo at Tours in Western France, it must be inferred that he was not fundamentally opposed to the coronation of Charles. He cannot, however, have been in sympathy with the pope's political views, and consequently feared lest he might share the fate of John's opponents at the papal court. As early as 872 he had been a candidate for the papal see, so that John possibly viewed him in the light of an opponent. On the flight of Formosus and the other papal officials, John convened a synod, 19 April, which ordered the fugitives to return to Rome. As they refused to obey this injunction, they were condemned by a second synod on 30 June. Against Formosus, should he fail to return, sentence of excommunication and deposition were pronounced by the first synod, the charges being that, impelled by ambition, he had aspired to the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and the Chair of Peter, had opposed the emperor and had deserted his diocese without papal permission. It follows from this that John saw in Formosus a rival whom he gravely suspected. The second synod of 30 June, after several new accusations had been brought against Formosus (e. g. that he had despoiled the cloisters in Rome, had performed the divine service in spite of the interdict, had conspired with certain iniquitous men and women for the destruction of the papal see), excluded him from the ranks of the clergy. Such charges, made against a man who was religious, moral, ascetic, and intellectual can only be referred to party spirit.

The condemnation of Formosus and the others was announced to the emperor and the Synod of Ponthion in July. In 878 John himself came to France, and the deposition of Formosus, who appeared in person, was confirmed at the synod of Troyes. According to the acts of the synod, which are however of doubtful authenticity, the sentence of excommunication against Formosus was withdrawn, after he had promised on oath never to return to Rome or exercise his priestly functions. The succeeding years were spent by Formosus at Sens. John's successor Marinus (882-884) released Formosus from his oath, recalled him to Rome, and in 883 restored him to his Diocese of Porto. During the short pontificates of Marinus and his successor Hadrian III (884-885), and under Stephen V (885-891), we learn nothing important concerning Formosus. In September, 891, he was elected to succeed Stephen. Under Stephen V the political horizon had become very threatening. Charles the Fat had reunited the Frankish kingdom in 885, but after his deposition and death in 887, Arnulf of Carinthia, the natural son of Karlmann and the nominee of the Germans, was unable to preserve its unity. In the western kingdom, Count Eudes of Paris Came forward as king; in Provence (Arelate), Louis, son of Boso; in North Burgundy (Jura), Rudolf, son of the Count of Auxerre and grandson of Louis the Pious; in Italy, Berengar of Friaul. The last-mentioned was opposed and defeated by Duke Guido (Wido) of Spoleto, who thereupon took possession of Lombardy, and assumed the title of king. Ruling now over the greater portion of Italy, Guido was a very dangerous neighbour for the papal states, especially as the Archdukes of Spoleto had been on many occasions engaged in conflict with the popes. Stephen V (q. v.) had unwillingly crowned Guido emperor, as King Arnulf had been unable to accept the pope's invitation to come to Rome. Consequently Formosus, after he had been unanimously elected pope by clergy and people, found himself compelled to recognize Guido's dignity and to crown him and his son Lambert Roman Emperor on April, 892. Important ecclesiastical questions claimed the pope's attention immediately after his elevation. In Constantinople, the patriarch Photius had been ejected and Stephen, the son of Emperor Basilius, elevated to the patriarchate. Archbishop Stylian of Neo-Cæsarea and the clerical opponents of Photius had written to Stephen V, requesting dispensation and confirmation for those clerics who had recognized Photius only under compulsion and had received orders at his hands. In his reply to this petition (892) Formosus insisted on a distinction of persons; indulgence might be readily shown in the case of the laity, but in the case of clerics such a course was attended with difficulties; the rule must be the sentence of the Eighth General Council (Can. iv), viz, that Photius neither had been nor was a bishop, and all clerics ordained or appointed by him must resign their office; the papal legates, Landulf and Romanus, were to consult with Stylian and Theophylactus of Ancyra on the matter. In this instance, Formosus only corroborated the decisions of his predecessors, Nicholas I and Hadrian II.

A matter of a pressing character, affecting the Church in Germany, next called for the papal decision. A quarrel had broken out between Archbishop Hermann of Cologne and Archbishop Adalgar of Hamburg concerning the Bishopric of Bremen, which Hermann claimed as suffragan. Formosus decided, in accordance with the decrees of the Synod of Frankfort (892), that Bremen should remain under the Archbishop of Hamburg until new dioceses were erected; Adalgar was to repair to the provincial synod of the Archbishop of Cologne. Formosus viewed with sorrow the political troubles that disturbed the old Frankish kingdom of the Carlovingian dynasty. In the contest between Udes (Odo) of Paris and Charles the Simple for the French crown, the pope, influenced by the Archbishop of Reims, sided with Charles and called on Arnold, the German king, to support him. The political position in Italy directly affected the pope as head of the ecclesiastical estates, and consequently his independence as head of the Church. Emperor Guido of Spoleto, the oppressor of the Holy See and the papal territories, was too near Rome; and the position of the papacy seemed very similar to its condition in the time of the Lombard kingdom, when Stephen II summoned Pepin to his assistance. Formosus secretly persuaded Arnulf to advance to Rome and liberate Italy; and, in 894, Arnulf made his first expedition, subjugating all the country north of the Po. Guido died in December of the same year, leaving his son Lambert, whom Formosus had crowned emperor, in the Care of his mother Agiltrude, the implacable opponent of the Carlovingians. In the autumn of 895 Arnulf undertook his second Italian campaign, and in February, 896, stood before the walls of Rome. Agiltrude had fortified herself in the city, but Arnulf succeeded in entering and was solemnly crowned by the pope. The new emperor thence marched against Spoleto to besiege Lambert and his mother, but was struck with paralysis on the way and was unable to continue the campaign.. Shortly afterwards (4 April, 896) Formosus died. He was succeeded by Boniface VI, who reigned only fifteen days.

Under Stephen VI, the successor of Boniface, Emperor Lambert and Agiltrude recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897, having renounced their claims to the greater part of Upper and Central Italy. Agiltrude being determined to wreak vengeance on her opponent even after his death, Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber. In 897 the second successor of Stephen had the body, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber, reinterred with full honours in St. Peter's. He furthermore annulled at a synod the decisions of the court of Stephen VI, and declared all orders conferred by Formosus valid. John IX confirmed these acts at two synods, of which the first was held at Rome and the other at Ravenna (898). On the other hand Sergius III (904-911) approved in a Roman synod the decisions of Stephen's synod against Formosus; all who had received orders from the latter were to be treated as lay persons, unless they sought reordination. Sergius and his party meted out severe treatment to the bishops consecrated by Formosus, who in turn had meanwhile conferred orders on many other clerics, a policy which gave rise to the greatest confusion. Against these decisions many books were written, which demonstrated the validity of the consecration of Formosus and of the orders conferred by him (see AUXILIUS).

JAFFÉ, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 2nd ed., I (Leipzig, 1885), 435-39; DÜMMLER, Gesta Berengarii (Halle, 1871); IDEM, Auxilius und Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866); IDEM, Geschichte des ostfränkischen Reiches (3 vols., 2nd ad., Leipzig, 1887-88); LAPÔTRE, L'Europe et le Saint Siège a l'époque carolingienne, I: Le pape Jean VIII (Paris, 1895); DUCHESNE, Les premiers temps de l'Etat pontifical (Paris, 1898), 153 sqq.; SALTET, Les réordinations, étude sur le sacrement de l'Ordre (Paris, 1907), 152 sqq.; HEFELE, Conciliengesch. (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1879), IV, 561 sqq.; LANGEN, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, III (Bonn, 1892), 295 sqq.; REUMONT, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, II (Berlin, 1867), 222 sqq.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Formularies

(LIBRI FORMULARUM)

Formularies are medieval collections of models for the execution of documents (acta), public or private; a space being left for the insertion of names, dates, and circumstances peculiar to each case. As is well known, it is practically inevitable that documents of the same nature, issued from the same office, or even from distinct offices, will bear a close resemblance to one another. Those charged with the execution and expedition of such documents come naturally to employ the same formulæ in Similar Cases; moreover, the use of such formulæ permits the drafting of important documents to be entrusted to minor officials, since all they have to do is to insert in the allotted space the particular information previously supplied them. Finally, in this way every document is Clothed with all possible efficiency, since each of its clauses, and almost every word, has a meaning clearly and definitely intended. Uncertainties and difficulties of interpretation are thus avoided, and not unfrequently lawsuits. This legal formalism is usually known as the "style" or habitual diction of chanceries and the documents that issue therefrom. It represents long efforts to bring into the document all necessary and useful elements in their most appropriate order, and to use technical expressions suited to the case, some of them more or less essential, others merely as a matter of tradition. In this way arose a true art of drafting public documents or private acta, which became the monopoly of chanceries and notaries, which the mere layman could only imperfectly imitate, and which in time developed to such a point that the mere "style" of a supposititious deed has often been sufficient to enable a skilful critic to detect the forgery. The earlier Roman notaries (tabelliones) had their own traditional formulæ, and the drafting of their acta was subject to an infinity of detail (see "Novels" of Justinian, xliv, lxvi); the imperial chanceries of Rome and Byzantium were more remarkable still for their formulæ. The chanceries of the barbarian kingdoms and that of the papacy followed in their footsteps. Nevertheless it is not directly from the chanceries that the formularies drawn up in the Middle Ages have come down to us, but rather from the monastic and ecclesiastical schools. Therein was taught, as pertaining to the study of law, the art of drafting public and private documents (see Du Cange, "Glossarium med. et infimæ Latinitatis", s. v. "Dictare"). It was called dictare as opposed to scribere, i. e. the mere material execution of such documents.

To train the dictatores, as they were known, Specimens of public and private acta were placed before them, and they had to listen to commentaries thereon. Thus arose the yet extant formularies, between the fifth and the ninth centuries. These models were sometimes of a purely academic nature, but the number of such is small; in almost every case they are taken from real documents, in the transcription of which the individualizing references were suppressed so as to make them take on the appearance of general formulæ; in many instances, too, nothing was suppressed. The formulæ deal with public documents: royal decrees on civil matters, ordinances, etc.; with documents relative to legal processes and the administration of justice; or with private deeds drawn up by a notary: sales, exchanges, gifts to churches and monasteries, transference of ecclesiastical property, the manumission of slaves, the settlement of matrimonial dowries, the execution of wills, etc. Finally, there are deeds which refer solely to ecclesiastical concerns: consecrations of churches, blessings of various kinds, excommunications, etc. The study of the medieval formularies is of importance for students of the history of legislation, the rise of institutions, the development of manners and customs, of civil history, above all for the criticism of charters and diplomas, and for researches in medieval philology. In those times the ecclesiastical and civil orders were closely related. Many civil functions and some of the highest state offices were held by ecclesiastics and monks. The ars dictandi was taught in the schools connected with the monasteries and those under ecclesiastical control. For quite a long time all acta were drawn up only in Latin, and as the vernacular languages, in Romance lands, gradually fell away from classical Latin, recourse to ecclesiastics and monks became a matter of necessity. The formularies are, of course, anything but models of good Latinity; with the exception of the Letters (Variæ) of Cassiodorus, and the St. Gall collection "Sub Salomone", they are written in careless or even barbarous Latin, though it is possible that their wretched "style" is intentional, so as to render them intelligible to the multitude.

The formularies of the Middle Ages date from the sixth to the ninth or tenth century, and we still possess many once used in one or other of the barbarian kingdoms. Many were edited in the seventeenth century by Jérôme Bignon, Baluze, Mabillon, and others; and many more m the nineteenth century, especially by two savants who compiled collections of them:

1. Eugène de Rozière, "Recueil général des formules usitées dans l'empire des Francs du cinquième au dixième siècle" (3 vols., Paris, 1859-71). He groups these early medieval formulæ under five principal heads: "Formulæ ad jus publicum, ad jus privatum, ad judiciorum ordinem, ad jus canonicum, et ad ritus ecclesiasticos spectantes". And he follows up this arrangement by a very complete set of tables of concordance.
2. Karl Zeumer, "Formulæ Merovingici et Karolini ævi" (Hanover, 1886) in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Leg.", V; he reproduces the formulæ in the work and gives a more complete study than de Rozière. In his pages will be found a complete bibliography of all written on the subject before that time; or Chevalier, "Topo-Bibl.", may be consulted under the word "Formules".

Some brief observations will here suffice on the formulæ used between the sixth and the ninth centuries in the various barbarian kingdoms.

(1) The Ostrogoths

Cassiodorus, secretary and afterwards prime minister of King Theodoric, included in his "Variarum (epistolarum) libri XII", particularly in books six and seven, and, as he says, for the guidance of his successors, a great number of acta and letters drawn up by him for his royal master. It is a genuine formulary, though standing apart by itself. This collection dates from before 538 (P. L., LXIX). The Servite Canciani took ninety-two of these formulæ of Cassiodorus and included them in his "Barbarorum leges antiquæ" (Venice, 1781, I, 19-56).

(2) The Visigoths

" Formulæ Visigothicæ", a collection of the forty-Six formulæ made under King Sisebut (612-621). The king's name occurs twice in the curious formula xx, a dowry settlement in hexameter verse. Roman and Gothic law are followed either separately or together, according to the nationality of the covenanters. This collection was published in 1854 by de Rozière from a Madrid Manuscript, which was copied in turn from an Oviedo Manuscript of the twelfth century, now lost.

(3) The Franks

Their formularies are numerous:

• (a) "Formulæ Andecavenses", a collection made at Angers, consisting of sixty formulæ for private acta, some of them dating from the sixth century, but the greater number from the early part of the seventh; the last three of the collection belong to the end of the seventh century. They were first edited in 1685 by Mabillon from an eighth-century manuscript preserved at Fulda.
• (b) "Formulæ Arvernenses" (also known as "Baluzianæ", from Baluze, their first editor, who issued the works in 1713), a collection of eight formulæ of private acta made at Clermont in Auvergne during the eighth century. The first of them is dated from the consulate of Honorius and Theodosius (407- 422).
• (c) "Marculfi monachi formularum libri duo", the most important of these collections, and dedicated by its author to a Bishop Landri, doubtless identical with the Bishop of Paris (650-656). The first book contains thirty-seven formulæ of royal documents; the second, cartœ pagenses, or private acta, to the number of fifty-two. The work, which was well done, was very favourably received, and became popular as an official textbook, if not in the time of the mayors of the palace, at least under the early Carlovingians. During the reign of Charlemagne it received a few additions, and was re-arranged under the title" Formulæ Marculfinæ ævi Karolini". Zeumer edited six formulæ closely related to this collection.
• (d) "Formulæ Turonenses", also known as "Sirmondicæ" (Baluze edited them under this title because they had been discovered by Père Sirmond in a Langres manuscript). This collection, made at Tours, contains forty-five formulæ, two of which are royal documents, many being judicial decisions, and the remainder private acta. It seems to belong to the middle of the eighth century. Zeumer added to the list twelve other formulæ taken from various manuscripts.
• (e) "Formulæ Bituricenses", a name given to nineteen formulæ taken from different collections, but all drafted at Bourges; they date from 720 to the close of the eighth century. Zeumer added to them twelve formulæ taken from the Abbey of Saint-Pierre de Vierzon.
• (f) "Formulæ Senonenses", two distinct collections, both of which were made at Sens, and preserved in the same ninth-century manuscript. The first, "Cartæ Senonicæ", dates from before 775, and contains fifty-one formulæ, of which seven are for royal documents, two are letters to the king, and forty-two are private charters. Zeumer added six Merovingian formulæ. The second collection, "Formulæ Senonenses recentiores", dates from the reign of Louis the Pious, and contains eighteen formulæ, of which seven deal with judicial acts. Zeumer added five metrical formulæ, and two Merovingian formulæ written in Tironian notes.
• (g) "Formulæ Pithoei" In a manuscript loaned by Pithou to Du Cange for his "Glossarium" of medieval Latin there was a rich collection of at least one hundred and eight formulæ, drawn up originally in territory governed by Salic law. This manuscript has disappeared. Under the above heading Zeumer has collected the various quotations made by Du Cange from this formulary.
• (h) "Formulæ Salicæ Bignonianæ", so called from the name of their first editor, Bignon. It contains twenty-seven formulæ, one of which is for a royal decree; they were collected in a country subject to Salic law, about the year 770.
• (i, j) "Formulæ Salicæ Merkelianæ", so called from the name of their editor, Merkel (about 1850), a collection of sixty-six formulæ taken from a Vatican manuscript; they were not brought to completion until after 817. The first part (1-30) consists of formulæ for private acta, modelled on "Marculf" and the "Formulæ Turonenses"; the second part (31-42) follows the "Formulæ Bignonianæ", the third (43-45) contains three formulæ drawn up in some abbey; the fourth (46-66) has formulæ dating from the close of the eighth century and probably compiled in some episcopal town. Two formulæ of decrees of the bishops of Paris were discovered by Zeumer in the same manuscript.
• (k) "Formulæ Salicæ Lindenbrogianæ", so called from the name of their first editor, Friedrich Lindenbrog, a Frankfort lawyer (1613) who edited them together with other documents. The collection contains twenty-one formulæ of private acta, drawn up in Salic law territory. Four others were added by Zeumer.
• (l) "Formulæ Imperiales e curia Ludovici Pii", also known as "Carpenterianæ" from Carpentier who first edited them in his "Alphabetum Tironianum" (Paris, 1747). This is an important collection of fifty-five formulæ, drawn up after the fashion of the charters of Louis the Pious at the Abbey of St. Martin of Tours, between 828 and 832, The manuscript is written mainly in Tironian notes. This collection was used by the Carlovingian chancery of the ninth Century. Zeumer has added to the list two formulæ.
• (m) "Collectio Flaviniensis", one hundred and seventeen formulæ compiled at the Abbey of Flavigny in the ninth century; of these, ten only are not to be met with elsewhere.
• (n) "Formulæ collectionis Sancti Dionysii", a collection of twenty-five formulæ made at the Abbey of St-Denys under Charlemagne; for the most part it is taken from the archives of the abbey.
• (o) "Formulæ codicis Laudunensis", a Laon manuscript containing seventeen formulæ, of which the first five were drawn up at the Abbey of St-Bavon in Ghent, and the remainder at Laon.

(4) The Alamanni

The most important of their formulæ are:

• (a) "Formulæ Alsaticæ", under which name we have two collections, one made at the Abbey of Murbach (Formulæ Morbacenses) at the end of the eighth century and preserved in a manuscript of St.Gall, containing twenty-seven formulæ, one of which is for a royal decree; the other embodies three formulæ made at Strasburg (Formulæ Argentinenses) and preserved in a Berne manuscript.
• (b) "Formulæ Augienses", from the Abbey of Reichenau. This consists of three distinct collections: one from the end of the eighth century containing twenty-three formulæ of private acta; another belonging to the eighth and ninth centuries contains forty-three formulæ of private documents; the third, "Formulæ epistolares Augienses", is a "correct letter-writer" with twenty-six formulæ.
• (C) "Formulæ Sangallenses" (from the Abbey of St. Gall), in two collections of this name. The "Formulæ Sangallenses miscellaneæ" consists of twenty-five formulæ, many of which are accompanied by directions for their use. They date from the middle of the eighth to the end of the ninth century. The important "Collectio Sangallensis Salomonis III tempore conscripta" is so called because it seems to have been compiled by the monk Notker at St. Gall, under Abbot Salomon III (890-920), who was also Bishop of Constance. Notker died in 912. It contains, in forty-seven formulæ, models of royal decrees, of private documents, of litterœ formatœ and other episcopal documents. Zeumer added six formulæ taken from the same manuscript.

(5) The Bavarians

Among their formulæ are:

• (a) "Formulæ Salisburgenses", a very fine collection of one hundred and twenty-six models of documents and letters, published in 1858, by Rockinger, and drawn up at Salzburg in the early part of the ninth century.
• (b) "Collectio Pataviensis" (of Passau), containing seven formulæ, five of which are of royal decrees, executed at Passau under Louis the German.
• (c) "Formulæ codicis S. Emmerami", fragments of a large collection made at St. Emmeram's, Ratisbon.

(6) Rome

The most important of all ancient formularies is certainly the "Liber diurnus romanorum pontificum", a collection of one hundred and seven formularies long used by the Apostolic chancery. If it was not drawn up for the papal chancery, it copies its documents, and is largely compiled from the "Registrum" or letter-book of St. Gregory the Great (590-604). It was certainly in official use by the Roman chancery from the ninth to the end of the eleventh century. This collection was known to the medieval canonists, and is often quoted by Cardinal Deusdedit and Yves of Chartres; four of its documents were incorporated into the "Decretum" of Gratian. The best manuscript of the "Liber diurnus", written at the beginning of the ninth century, comes from the Roman monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme and was discovered in the Vatican Library. About the middle of the seventeenth century, the learned Lucas Holstenius used it when preparing an edition of the work which was officially stopped and suppressed on the eve of its appearance, because it contained an ancient profession of faith in which the popes anathematized their predecessor Honorius. In 1680 the Jesuit Garnier, using another manuscript of the College of Clermont (Paris), brought out an edition of the "Liber diurnus" not approved by Rome (P. L., CV). In the nineteenth century the Vatican manuscript was utilized for two editions, one by de Rozière (Paris, 1869), the other by von Sickel (Vienna, 1889). In 1891 the Abbate Ceriani discovered at the Ambrosiana (Milan) a third manuscript as yet unused. For a full bibliography of recent researches concerning the "Liber diurnus" see the "Topo-Bibl." of Chevalier, s. v. While, in its complete form, the "Liberdiurnus" cannot date back further than 786, the earliest forms of it go back to the end of the seventh century. Von Sickel holds that its opening formulæ (1-63) are even fifty years earlier than that date. It is badly arranged as a collection, but wonderfully complete. After a series of addresses and conclusions for papal letters, that vary according to the addressees, there are formulæ concerning the installation of bishops, the consecration of churches, the administration of church property, the grant of the pallium, and various other privileges. Then follow models for the official correspondence on the occasion of a vacancy of the Holy See and the election of a pope, also directions for the consecration and the profession of faith of the pope-elect; finally a group of formulæ affecting various matters of ecclesiastical administration.

In the tenth century these formularies cease to be in universal use; in the eleventh, recourse is had to them still more rarely; other methods of training notaries are introduced. Copies of letters are no longer placed before them. In their stead, special treatises of instruction are prepared for these officials, and manuals of epistolary rhetoric appear, with examples scattered here and there throughout the text, or collected in separate books. Such treatises on composition, artes dictaminis, have hitherto been only partially studied and classified, chiefly by Rockinger in "Briefsteller und Formelbücher des XI. bis XIV. Jahrhunderts" (Munich, 1863). The most ancient of these manuals known to us is the "Breviarium de dictamine" of Alberic of Monte Cassino, about 1075; in the twelfth century treatises of this kind become more frequent, first in Italy, then in France, especially along the banks of the Loire at Orléans and at Tours. Side by side with these works of epistolary rhetoric we meet special treatises for the use of clerks in different chanceries, and formularies to guide notaries public. Such are the "Formularium tabellionum" of Irnerius of Bologna in the twelfth century, and the "Summa artis notariæ" of Ranieri of Perugia in the thirteenth; that of Salathiel of Bologna printed at Strasburg, in 1516, and the very popular one of Rolandino that went through many editions, beginning with the Turin edition of 1479.

As to the papal chancery, in general very faithful to its customs and its "style", after the reform of Innocent III many formularies and practical treatises appeared, none of them possessing an official value. The writings of Dietrich of Nieheim (an employé of the chancery in 1380), "De Stilo" and "Liber Cancellariæ", have been the subject of critical studies. At a more recent date we meet many treatises on the Roman chancery and on pontifical letters, but they are not formularies, though their text often contains many models.

Quite recently, however, there has appeared an official publication of certain formulæ of the Roman Curia, i. e. the collection of formulæ for matrimonial dispensations granted by the Dataria Apostolica (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS), published in 1901 as "Formulæ Apostolicæ Datariæ pro matrimonialibus dispensationibus, jussu Emi. Card. Pro Datarii Cajetani Aloisi-Masella reformatæ".

Lastly, in a different order of ideas, it may be well to mention a collection of formulæ for use in episcopal courts, the "Formularium legalepracticum" of Francesco Monacelli (Venice, 1737), re-edited by the Camera Apostolica (3 vols. fol., Rome, 1834).

From the twelfth century onward the formularies of the papal Curia become more numerous but less interesting, since it is no longer necessary to have recourse to them to supplement the documents.

The formularies of the Cancellaria Apostolica are collections drawn up by its clerks, almost exclusively for their own guidance; they interest us only through their relation to the "Rules of the Chancery" (see ROMAN CURIA). The formularies of the Pœnitentiaria have a higher interest for us; they appear during the twelfth century when that department of Roman administration was not restricted, as it now is, to questions of conscience and the forum internum, but served as a sort of clearing-house for lesser favours granted by the Holy See, especially for dispensations. These interesting documents, including the formularies, have been collected and edited by Göller in "Die papstliche Poenitentiarie bis Eugen IV." (Rome, 1907).

Previously, Lea had published "A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century" (Philadelphia, 1892), probably the work of Cardinal Thomasius of Capua (died 1243). We must mention the "Summa de absolutionibus et dispensationibus" of Nicholas IV; of particular value also is the formulary of Benedict XII (1336 at the latest), made by order of that pope and long in use. It contains five hundred and seventy letters of which more than two hundred are taken from the collection of Thomasius. Attention is also directed to the list of "faculties" conferred, in 1357, on Cardinal Albornoz, first edited by Lecacheux in "Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire des écoles françaises de Rome et d'Athènes", in 1898; and to later texts in Göller. It will suffice if we make a bare mention of the taxœ or "taxes" in use at the Pœnitentiaria, to which were occasionally joined those imposed by the Cancellaria; in the opinion of the writer, they are not in any way related to the formularies.

Besides the Works mentioned above see GIRY, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), Bk. IV, ch. i, Formulaires et manuels; Bk. V, Les Chancelleries; from this Work We have largely drawn; KOBER in Kirchenlex., s. vv. Formelbücher, and Liber diurnus.

A. BOUDINHON.

William Forrest

Priest and poet; dates of birth and death uncertain. Few personal details are known of him. He is thought to have been related to John Forest, the Franciscan martyr, and was connected with Christ Church, Oxford, though in what capacity is not clear; probably he was a student there. It is certain that he was present when the university, in 1530, discussed the question of Henry VIII's divorce; he also gives a long account in his poem on Catherine of Aragon of the rebuilding of the college when it was remodelled, and we find him in receipt of a pension from it in 1555. Soon after the accession of Mary he was made a royal chaplain, but nothing is known of what became of him after her death. An interesting entry occurs in the State papers (domestic) of Elizabeth, under the date 23 Dec., 1592, to the effect that a certain Robert Faux being examined, confessed that "3 or 4 years since he had given a gray nag with a saddle and bridle to Forrest, a priest, at an ale house in Stoke, Northampton". This may have been William Forrest, and points perhaps to his being a fugitive at the time. He was a skilful musician and collected the manuscripts of some of the best contemporary English composers. This collection is now preserved in Oxford. The greater part of his poems are still in manuscript. None of them are of great poetical merit, but some are extremely interesting from the light they throw upon certain political, religious, and social events of his time. There are some enlightened suggestions in his work concerning points of social reform. Warton, in his "History of English Poetry", remarks that Forrest seems to have been able to "accommodate his faith to the reigning powers", and the statement rests upon the fact that he dedicated two of his works to the protector Somerset. Otherwise he seems to have been a loyal Catholic. Forrest's works are: "History of Joseph the Chaste" (in manuscript, Oxford and British Museum)--a long extract from his poem is given in "Starkey's Life and Letters" (see below); A metrical version of certain Psalms and Canticles (in manuscript); "A New Ballad of the Marigold", in praise of Queen Mary, printed in the "Harleian Miscellany", vol. X; "The History of Grisild the Second", a long poem upon Catherine of Aragon and her divorce, published entire by the Roxburghe Club (London, 1875), with memoir by the Rev. W. H. Macray; "The Life of the Virgin Mary", and other poems (Harleian Manuscript, 1703).

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Starkey's Life and Letters (Early Eng. Text Soc., London, 1878); WARTON, Hist. Eng. Poetry, ed. HAZLITT (London, 1871:, IV; WOOD, Athenae Ozon., ed. BLISS (London, 1812), I; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.

K.M. WARREN

Arnold Förster

German entomologist; b. at Aachen, 20 Jan., 1810; d. in the same city, 12 Aug., 1884. His father died while he was quite young, and it was only by strict economy and by tutoring that he was able to complete his gymnasium course, which he began in 1824. He was an apt student, and showed a decided preference for natural history. The entomologist Meigen, who resided in the neighborhood, fostered and directed this preference and his influence may be traced throughout Förster's subsequent work in entomology. Förster began the study of medicine at Bonn in 1832, but soon abandoned it to devote himself entirely to natural science. He made rapid progress, and, while still a student, became assistant to Goldfuss and tutor in his family. In 1836 he was appointed instructor in the high school -- known today as the Realgymnasium -- of his native city, with which he was connected until his death.

Förster was a conscientious teacher, and endeavoured to awaken in his pupils a love of and interest in the wonders of nature. His wealth of knowledge and his untiring spirit of research would, however, have found a wider and more suitable field in the university than in the gymnasium. Most of his leisure was devoted to his studies in entomology, though botany also claimed part of his attention. He was regarded in particular as an authority in the "microhymenoptera". He was an indefatigable collector and a keen observer, but was inclined to magnify minute differences, and so multiply species and divisions. Förster belonged to a number of societies of natural history, and carried on an extensive correspondence with entomologists both at home and abroad. In 1853, he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy honoris causa at Bonn, and in 1855 the title of professor from the Minister of Instruction. He was abstemious in his habits, and a devout and practical Catholic, conspicuous for his charity towards the poor. Among his papers on entomology are "Beiträge zur Monographie der Pteromalinen"; "Einige neuen Arten aus der Familie der Blattwespen"; "Hymenopterologische Studien"; "Monographie der Gattungen Campoplex u. Hylaeus"; "Flora Excursoria des Regierungsbezirks Aachen".

WACKERZAPP, Verhandl, d. Naturhistorischen Vereins d. preussischen Rheinlande, Westfalens und d. Regierungsbezirks Osnabruck (Bonn, 1880), Correspondenzblatt, p. 38.

HENRY M. BROCK

Frobenius Forster

Prince-Abbot of St. Emmeram at Ratisbon, b. 30 Aug., 1709, at Königsfeld in Upper Bavaria; d. 11 Oct., 1791, at Ratisbon. After studying the humanities and philosophy at Freising and Ingolstadt, he entered the Benedictine monastery of St. Emmeram at Ratisbon where he took vows on 8 Dec., 1728. He made his theological studies partly at his monastery and partly at Rott, where the Bavarian Benedictines had their common study house. Shortly after his elevation to the priesthood, in 1733, he became professor of philosophy and theology at St. Emmeram and for some time held the office of master of novices. In 1745 he was sent to the Benedictine university at Salzburg to teach philosophy and physics. Two years later he returned to his monastery where he taught philosophy and Holy Scriptures until he became librarian and prior in 1750. He had gained an enviable reputation as a philosopher and scientist, and was one of the first religious who endeavoured to reconcile Scholastic philosophy with the Cartesian and the Leibniz-Wolffian school. Though leaning towards the Leibniz-Wolffian philosophy, he rejected many of its teachings, such as the cosmological optimism of Leibniz and the mechanism of Wolff, and was rather an eclectic than a slavish follower of any one system. In 1759 Forster was chosen one of the first members of the newly founded Bavarian academy of sciences. A year later he laid down the office of prior and was appointed provost at Hohengebraching, a dependency of St. Emmeram, situated about five miles south of Ratisbon. On 24 July, 1762, he was elected as successor to the deceased Prince-Abbott Johann Baptist Kraus of St. Emmeram.

Forster's election was the inauguration of the golden era of St. Emmeram. The learned new prince-abbott endeavoured to impart his own love for learning to each of his subjects and offered them every facility to advance in knowledge. During his reign the course given in the natural sciences at St. Emmeram became famous throughout Germany and drew scholars not only from the Benedictine monasteries of Bavaria, but also from the houses of other religious orders. In order to promote the study of Holy Scripture, Forster called the learned Maurist philologist, Charles Lancelot of St-Germain-des-Prés, who instructed the monks of St. Emmeram in Oriental languages from 1 Oct., 1771, to 27 May, 1775. To encourage his young monks still more in their respective studies, he founded a physical, a mineralogical, and a numismatic cabinet and procured the best available literature in the various branches. Forster's chief literary production in his carefully prepared edition of the works of Alcuin which appeared in two folio volumes (4 parts) at Ratisbon in 1777. It is reprinted in the Latin Patrology of Migne (vols. C and C1). He also wrote in Latin five short philosophical treatises and a dissertation on the Vulgate. From a codex preserved in the library of the cathedral chapter at Freising he edited the decrees of the Synod of Aschheim and made a German translation of it for "Abhandlungen der Bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften" (I,30-60); and from a codex in the library of St. Emmeram he published in Mansi's "Collectio Ampl. Conciliorum" (XIII, 1025-28), the decrees of a Bavarian synod held during the times of the Agilolfings.

ENDRES, Frobenius Forster in Strassburger theol. Studien (Freiburg im Br., 1900), IV, fasc. 1; LINDNER, Die Schriftateller des Benediktiner-Ordens in Bayern (Ratisbon, 1880), I, 56-62; SCHNEIDER in Hist.-Polit. Blotter (Munich, 1901), CXXVII, 902-913.

MICHAEL OTT

Thomas Ignatius Maria Forster

Astronomer and naturalist, b. at London, 9 Nov., 1789; d. at Brussels, 2 Feb., 1860. His literary education was neglected, as his father, a distinguished botanist, was a follower of Rousseau. He made up this deficiency, and during his lifetime became master of a number of modern languages. His early studies were, however, desultory, and he seems to have put off the choice of a profession until some years after attaining to man's estate. As early as 1805 he had compiled a "Journal of the Weather" and had published his "Liber Rerum Naturalium". A year later, inspired by Gall's works, he took up the study of phrenology. The comet of 1811 aroused his interest in astronomy, a science which he continued to pursue, and eight years later, on 3 July, 1819, he himself discovered a new comet. He finally matriculated at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, in order to study law, but soon abandoned it to study medicine, taking his degree in 1819. Two years before, he had married the daughter of Colonel Beaufoy and taken up his residence at Spa Lodge, Tunbridge Wells. After the birth of his only daughter he moved to Hartwell in Sussex, and then went abroad, where he spent three years. His observations and studies on the Continent led to the publication, in 1824, of his "Perennial Calendar". It was also during this period that he was attracted by the claims of the Catholic Church, to which he became a convert. After his return to England he became a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and helped to found a meteorological society, which, however, had but a brief existence.

His father died in 1825, and he soon after took up his residence in Chelmsford in order to be near his daughter, who was a pupil at Newhall Convent. Here he undertook a series of researches on the influence of atmospheric conditions on diseases, and particularly on cholera. In 1830 he collected and published the letters of Locke, Shaftesbury, and Algernon Sydney. In 1833 he again went abroad, where he spent most of his remaining years, settling finally in Bruges. He continued his literary activity during the latter part of his life, some of his writings being poetical. He also composed selections for the violin. Forster was remarkable for his versatility and industry. He numbered among his friends many of the prominent authors and scholars of his time, such as Gray, Porson, Shelley, Peacock, Herschel, and Whewell. Besides the works mentioned, he also wrote, "Researches About Atmospheric Phenomena" (London, 1812; 2nd ed., 1823); "Reflections on the Destructive Operation of Spirituous Liquors" (London, 1812); "Pocket Encyclopedia of Natural Phenomena" (from his father's MSS., 1826); "Beobachtungen uber den Einfluss des Luftdruckes auf das Gehor" (Frankfort, 1835); "Observations sur l'influence des Cometes" (1836); "Pan, a Pastoral" (Brussels, 1840); "Essay on Abnormal Affections of the Organs of Sense" (Tunbridge Wells, 1841); "Annales d'un Physicien Voyageur" (Bruges, 1848); and numerous articles in "The Gentleman's Magazine".

FORSTER, Recueil de ma Vie (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1835; Epistolarium Forsterianum (Bruges, 1845-50); BOULGER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.

HENRY M. BROCK

Diocese of Fortaleza

(FORTALEXIENSIS)

The Diocese of Fortaleza is co-extensive with the State of Ceará in the Republic of Brazil, having an area of 46,912 square miles, and a population of 850,000 souls, of whom fewer than 1000 are non-Catholics. Fortaleza, or Ceara, the episcopal city, has a population of 60,000 Formerly a part of the Diocese of Pernambuco, the district was erected into a separate diocese, suffragan to Bahia, by Pius IX, 8 June, 1854. João Guerino Gomes was named as first bishop but did not accept the appointment. Father Gomes, who was famous in his day both as an orator and as a philosopher, died in 1859; a biographical notice of him was presented to the Historical Institute of Bahia by his cousin, José Antonio Teixeira. The first bishop, Luis Antonio dos Santos, founded the diocesan seminaries at Fortaleza and Crato, and, for the education of girls, the College of the Immaculate Conception, besides building the church of the Sacred Heart at Fortaleza.

Dom Luis Antonio dos Santos having been elevated to the metropolitan See of Bahia, Joaquim José Vieira--b. 1836, consecrated at Campinas in the State of S. Paulo, 9 December, 1883--took possession of the See of Fortaleza on 24 February, 1884. His incumbency has been fruitful in the increase of means for the education of the poor, the college of Canindé and the Jesus-Mary-Joseph School at Fortaleza owing their existence to his pastoral zeal. In 1908 this diocese contained 77 parishes with 120 priests. The diocesan seminary is conducted by the Lazarist Fathers; there is a Benetictine abbey, with a college at Quixada; the Italian Capuchins have charge of the Sacred Heart church at Fortaleza and the church of St. Francis of the Wounds at Canindé, to which latter is attached a college for poor boys. The Sisters of Charity have under their care the Misericordia Hospital at Fortaleza, the College of the Immaculate Conception, the Jesus-Mary-Joseph School, and the lunatic asylum at Parangaba. The principal lay association in the diocese is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, consisting of a superior council, 32 particular councils, and 156 conferences, and maintains 10 primary schools and 9 libraries, besides publishing, as its official organ, the "Revista do Consellio Central".

GUILHERME STUDART

Bl. Adrian Fortescue

Knight of St. John, martyr, b. about 1476, executed 10 July, 1539. He belonged to the Salden branch of the great Devonshire family of Fortescue, and was a true country gentleman of the period, occasionally following the King in the wars with France (1513 and 1522), not unfrequently attending the court, and at other times acting as justice of the peace or commissioner for subsidies. He was knighted in 1503 (Clermont; but D.N.B. gives 1528), attended the Field of the Cloth of Gold (1520), and late in life (1532) became a Knight of St. John. When Anne Boleyn became queen, Sir Adrian (whose mother, Alice Boleyn, was Anne's grand-aunt) naturally profited to some extent, but, as we see from his papers, not very much. The foundations of his worldly fortunes had been laid honourably at an eartier date. He was a serious thrifty man pains-taking in business, careful in accounts, and a lover of the homely wit of that day. He collected and signed several lists of proverbs and wise saws, which, though not very brilliant, are never offensive or coarse, always sane, and sometimes rise to a high moral or religious level.

All of a sudden this quiet, worthy gentleman was overwhelmed by some unexplained whim of the Tudor tyrant. On 29 August, 1534, he was put under arrest, no one knows why, but released after some months. On 3 February, 1539, he was arrested a second time and sent to the Tower. In April he was condemned untried by an act of attainder; in July he was beheaded. No specific act of treason was alleged against him, but only in general "sedition and refusing allegiance". The attainder, however, went on to decree death against Cardinal Pole and several others because they "adhered themselves to the Bishop of Rome". Catholic tradition was always held that Sir Adrian died for the same cause, and modern Protestant critics have come to the same conclusion. His cultus has always flourished among the Knights of St. John, and he was beatified by Leo XIII in 1895.

J.H. POLLEN

Fortitude

(1) Manliness is etymologically what is meant by the Latin word virtus and by the Greek andreia, with which we may compare arete (virtue), aristos (best), and aner (man). Mas (male) stands to Mars, the god of war, as arsen (male) to the corresponding Greek deity Ares. While andreia (manliness) has been specialized to signify valour, virtus has been left in its wider generality, and only in certain contexts is it limited, as by Caesar when he says: "Helvetii reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt". Here the writer was certainly not taking the pious outlook upon virtue, except in so far as for primitive peoples the leading virtue is bravery and the skillful strength to defend their lives and those of their fellow-tribesmen. At this stage of culture we may apply Spinoza's notion that virtue is the conservatory force of life. "In proportion as a man aims at and is successful in pursuing his utile, that is his esse, so much the more is he endowed with virtue; on the other hand, in proportion as he neglects to cultivate his utile or his esse, so much the greater is his impotence" (Eth., IV, prop. 20). "Virtue is that human faculty, which is defined only by the essence of man, that is, which is limited only by the efforts of man to persevere in his esse" (prop. 22). The idea is continued in Propositiones 23, 24, 25, 27. The will to live -- der Wille zu leben -- is the root virtue. Of course Spinoza carries his doctrine higher than does the savage warrior, for he adds that the power preservative and promotive of life is adequacy of ideas, reasonable conduct, conformity to intelligent nature: finally that "the highest virtue of the intellect is the knowledge of God" (lib. V, prop. xlii). Spinoza usually mixes the noble with the ignoble in his views: for a rude people his philosophy stops short at virtue, the character of the strong man defending his existence against many assaults.

Aristotle does not say that fortitude is the highest virtue; but he selects it first for treatment when he describes the moral virtues: eipomen proton peri andreias (Eth. Nic., III, 6); whereas St. Thomas is at pains to say explicitly that fortitude ranks third after prudence and justice among the cardinal virtues. The braves in a warrior tribe and the glamour of braverie in knight-errantry, the display of pomp by modern armies on parade, were not objects to disturb the sense of proportion in the mind of the Friar Preacher. Still less could etymology deceive his judgment into thinking that the prime virtue was the soldier's valour commended on the Victoria Cross. Neither would he despise the tribute "For Valour" in its own degree.

(2) To come now to definitions. If we consult Plato and Aristotle we find the former comparing man to the god Glaucus who from dwelling in the sea had his divine limbs encrusted beyond recognition with weeds and shells: and that represents the human spirit disguised by the alien body which it drags about as a penalty. The soul in its own rational nature (for our present purpose we fuse together the two terms psyche and nous, distinguished by Aristotle, into one -- the soul) is simple: man is compound, and, being conflictingly compounded, he has to drive a pair of steeds in his body, one ignoble -- the concupiscences -- the other relatively noble -- the spiritual element, in which is "go", "dash", "onslaught", "pluck", "endurance". Upon the latter element is based fortitude, but the animal spirit needs to be taken up and guided by the rational soul in order to become the virtue. It is in the breast that ho thymos, to thymoeides (courage, passion) dwells, midway between reason in the head and concupiscence in the abdomen. Plato's high spirituality kept him from speaking too exaltedly of fortitude which rested on bodily excellence: consequently he would have wise legislators educate their citizens rather in temperance than in courage, which is separable from wisdom and may be found in children or in mere animals (Laws, I, 630, C, D, E; 631, C; 667, A).

Although Aristotle makes animal courage only the basis of fortitude -- the will is courageous, but the animal spirit co-operates (ho de thymos synergei) -- he has not a similar contempt for the body, and speaks more honourably of courage when it has for its prime object the conquest of bodily fear before the face of death in battle. Aristotle likes to narrow the scope of his virtues as Plato likes to enlarge his scope. He will not with his predecessor (Lackes, 191, D, E) extend fortitude to cover all the firmness or stability which is needful for every virtue, consequently Kant was able to say: "Virtue is the moral strength of the will in obeying the dictates of duty" (Anthropol., sect. 10, a). The Platonic Socrates took another limited view when he said that courage was the episteme ton deinon kai me (Laches, 199); hence he inferred that it could be taught. Given that in themselves a man prefers virtue to vice, then we may say that for him every act of vice is a failure of fortitude. Aristotle would have admitted this too; nevertheless he chose his definition: "Fortitude is the virtue of the man who, being confronted with a nobel occasion of encountering the danger of death, meets it fearlessly" (Eth. Nic., III, 6). Such a spirit has to be formed as a habit upon data more or less favourable; and therein it resembles other virtues of the moral kind. Aristotle would have controverted Kant's description of moral stability in all virtue as not being a quality cultivatable into a habit: "Virtue is the moral strength of the will in obeying the dictates of duty, never developing into a custom but always springing freshly and directly from the mind" (Anthropol., I, 10, a). Not every sort of danger to life satisfies Aristotle's condition for true fortitude: there must be present some noble display of prowess -- alke kai kalon. He may not quite positively exclude the passive endurance of martyrdom, but St. Thomas seems to be silently protesting against such an exclusion when he maintains that courage is rather in endurance than in onset.

As a commentator on Aristotle, Professor J.A. Stewart challenges the friends of the martyrs to make a stand for their cause when he says: "It is only when a man can take up arms and defend himself, or where death is glorious, that he can show courage" (p. 283). Here the disjunctive "or" may save the situation: but there is no such reserve on p. 286, where he adds: "Men show courage when they can take up arms and defend themselves, or (e) where death is glorious. The former condition may be realized without the latter, in which case the andreia would be of a spurious kind: the latter condition, however, cannot be realized without the former. Death in a good cause which a man endured fearlessly, but could not actively resist could not be kalos thanatos (glorious death)." Does Aristotle positively make this exclusion? If so, St. Thomas corrects him very needfully, as Britons would admit on behalf of their soldiers who, off the coast of S. Africa in 1852, nobly stood in their ranks and went unresistingly down in the sinking ship, Birkenhead, that they might give the civilians a better chance of being saved. As specimens of courage not in the higher order Aristotle gives the cases of soldiers whose skill enables them to meet without much apprehension what others would dread, and who are ready to flee as soon as grave danger is seen: of animally courageous men whose action is hardly moral: of courage where hope is largely in excess over dread: of ignorance which does not apprehend the risk: and of civic virtue which is moved by the sanction of reward and penalty. In the above instances the test of oi andreioi dia to kalon prattousi -- "the exercise of fortitude is virtue", a principle which is opposed to the mere pragmatism that would measure courage by efficiency in soldiership -- fails. Aristotle says that mercenaries, who have not a high appreciation of the value of their own lives, may very well expose their lives with more readiness than could be found in the virtuous man who understands the worth of his own life, and who regards death as the peras -- the end of his own individual existence (phoberotaton d' ho thanatos peras gar). Some have admired Russian nihilists going to certain death with no hope for themselves, here or hereafter, but with a hope for future generations of Russians. It is in the hope for the end that Aristotle places the stimulus for the brave act which of itself brings pain. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori ("It is sweet and noble to die for one's native land" -- Horace, Odes, III, ii, 13): the nobility is in the act, the sweetness chiefly in the anticipated consequences, excepting so far as there is a strongly felt nobility (Aristotle, Eth. Nic., III, 5-9) in the self-sacrifice.

(3) St. Thomas keeps as close to Aristotle as he may, departing from him as to the dignity, perhaps, which is to be found in the passive martyr's death, as to the hope of future life, and as to the character of virtue as a matter mainly of fine conduct aesthetically. He calls the specific virtue of fortitude that which braves the greatest dangers and therefore that which meets the risk of life in battle. Fortitude is concerned not so much with audacia as with timor: not so much with aggredi (attack) as with sustinere (endurance): which means that the courageous man has to attend rather to bearing up against terrifying circumstances than to mastering his impetuosity or else to arousing it to the requisite degree: principalior actus fortitudinis est sustinere, immobiliter sistere in periculis, quam aggredi. Seneca as a Stoic also attacks Aristotle's use of anger as an instrument in the hand of virtue; he treats the passion as bad and to suppressed. In the onslaught is displayed the animal excitement, the battle rage, which St. Thomas calls the irascible passion: and of this St. Thomas says, what Aristotle says of thymos, that it is an agency to be used by the rational will within due limits. Anything like a malignant desire to slaughter a hated enemy out of vengeance or out of savage delight in blood-shedding should be excluded. For the endurance (sustinere), says St. Thomas, the irascible part is not demanded, since the reasonable will suffice, "as the act of endurance rests only with the reason per se". As a cardinal virtue, which is a consideration not taken up by Aristotle, fortitude is treated by St. Thomas from the aspect of its need for ensuring the stability of the virtues in general: Cardinales principales dicuntur virtutes, quoe proecipue sibi vindicant id quod pertinet communiter ad virtutes. Virtues in general must act with that firmness which fortitude bestows (II-II, Q, cxxiii).

(4) Fortitude as one of the gifts from the Holy Ghost is a supernatural virtue, and passes beyond the Aristotelian range. It is what, as Christians, we must always have in mind in order to make our actions acceptable for eternal life. But we still keep hold upon the natural principles of fortitude as those whereon grace has to build. In the spiritual life of the ordinary Christian much that Aristotle has said remains in its own degree true, though we have to depart especially from the master's insistence upon the field of battle. Our exercise is mainly not in war strictly so-called, but in moral courage against the evil spirit of the times, against improper fashions, against human respect, against the common tendency to seek at least the comfortable, if not the voluptuous. We need courage also to be patient under poverty or privation, and to make laudable struggles to rise in the social scale. I requires fortitude to mount above the dead level of average Christianity into the region of magnanimity, and if opportunity allow it, of magnificence, which are the allied virtues of fortitude, while another is perseverance, which tolerates no occasional remissness, still less occasional bouts of dissipation to relieve the strain of high-toned morality and religion.

(5) The physical conditions of fortitude are treated for instance by Bain in "The Emotions and the Will", and they are such as these: "goodness of nervous tone which keeps all the currents in their proper courses with a certain robust persistence; health and freshness; tonic coolness; light and buoyant spirit; elate and sanguine temperament; acquired mastery over terror, as when the soldier gets over the cannon fever of his first engagement, and the public speaker over the nervousness of his first speech" (Chap V, no. 17). These physical matters, though not directly moral, are worthy of attention; there is much interaction between moral and physical qualities, and our duty is to cultivate the two departments of Fortitude conjointly.

See authors quoted in this article and in the article CARDINAL VIRTUES.

J. RICKABY

Fortunato of Brescia

Morphologist and Minorite of the Reform of Lombardy; b. at Brescia, 1701; d. at Madrid, 1754. He received the religious habit in 1718. A distinguished philosopher and theologian, Fortunato was also renowned for his studies in the natural sciences. He was secretary general of his order, and stood in high favour at the Bourbon court of Spain. A special importance attaches to his philosophical works, as he was among the first to bring together the teachings of Scholastic philosophy and the discoveries of the physical sciences. His scientific work is rendered important by his extensive use of the microscope, in which he followed the lead of Malpighi. Avoiding the then prevalent discussions on vitalism, he devoted himself to a positive study of the problems of natural science. Convinced that a knowledge of microscopic anatomy is the key to the secrets of nature, he deemed two things to be of prime importance: first, an experimental study of the histological constitution of the various organs, to learn their functions; and second, the separation of these organs into their elements, to determine their embryological origin. In spite of all opposition, this view, so clearly set forth in the works of Fortunato, has prevailed in pathological and physiological schools, and has indicated a method of examining what was formerly considered the most complex and delicate part of the human body, namely the central nervous system. The same view has also led to some of the most remarkable discoveries in biology. In this sense Fortunato is a pioneer. In fact it was century after that Bichat, following Bourdeu's lead, and, later on, Cuvier, advanced in the same direction. True to his purpose, Fortunato gave no heed to the anti-vitalistic controversies of his day, and spent no time investigating plastic force and the nisus formativus; he confined himself to the microscopic study of the parts of the organism, and in this way succeeded in classifying tissues and organs many years before Bichat (1800), who received all the credit for the classification. Fortunato was the first to distinguish between tissues and organs. He established the idea of tissues, or, as he wrote, "of those organic parts which possess a definite structure visible with the microscope and characterized by their component elements". With sufficient accuracy he described connective and bony tissue. The morphological complexus of the various tissues he calls the "system of tissues"; and the physiological complexus of the various organs he calls the "system of organs". These exact notions must have been the reward of wide and difficult investigation, as at the time there was no systematic technic in microscopy. From his many accurate descriptions, it is evident that his researches extended to many animals, and particularly to insects. In view of all this, it seems warranted to assert that Fortunato was the first morphologist, especially as not the slightest hint of this most important branch of comparative anatomy is found in Malpighi, Morgagni, Leeuwenhoek, or Haller, the path-finders in microscopic anatomy.

GEMELLI, Un precursore della moderna morfologia comparata in Atti del Congresso dei Naturalisti Italiani (Milan, 1907); IDEM, P. Fortunato da Brescia in Rivista di fisica, matematica e scienze naturali (Pavia, 1908), with portrait and complete bibliography.

A. GEMELLI

Fortunatus

Venantius Honorius Clementianus Fortunatus

A Christian poet of the sixth century, b. between 530 and 540 in Upper Italy, between Ceneda and Treviso.

He received his literary education at Ravenna. Here he first manifested his poetical ability by a poem celebrating the dedication of a church to St. Andrew by the bishop, Vitalis. He appears to have left Ravenna in 565, crossing the Alps and a part of Southern Germany and reaching in the autumn the banks of the Moselle. The stages of his journey may be traced in his poems. They were: Mainz, where he celebrated the construction of the baptistery and church of St. George (II, 11 and 12), and in which he compliments the bishop, Sidonius (IX, 9); Cologne, where he accepted the hospitality of Bishop Carentinus (III, 14); Trier, where he praises Bishop Nicetius (III, 11) who had built a castle on the Moselle (III, 12); Metz, which he describes (III, 13). He then made a journey on the Moselle, of which he gives a humorous account (IV, 8). But the principal event of his sojourn at Metz was his presentation at the court of King Sigebert, where he arrived at the time of the king's marriage with Brunehild (566), for which occasion he wrote and epithalamium (VI, 1). Shortly afterwards Brunehild renounced Arianism for Catholicism and Fortunatus extolled this conversion (VI, 1a). He won the favour of the courtiers by his eulogies, notably that of Gogo and Duke Lupus, the latter one of the most remarkable men of the time, a real survival, amid barbarian surroundings, of Roman culture and traditions. Fortunatus soon resumed his journey. New poems repaid the hospitality of the Bishops of Verdun (II, 23) and Reims (III, 15); at Soissons he venerated the tomb of St. Medardus (II, 16), and finally arrived at Paris, where he praised the clergy for their zeal in reciting the Divine Office (II, 9). His description of the chanting of the Office on the eve of a feast accompanied by an orchestra is a curious document. He made the acquaintance of King Caribert, whom he compares to Solomon, Trajan, and Fabius, and whose Latin eloquence he praises highly (VI, 2). From Paris he went to Tours, which was probably his original destination, for while at Ravenna he had been miraculously cured of a disease of the eyes through the intercession of St. Martin. He worshipped at the tomb of the saint and gave thanks to the bishop, Euphronius (III, 3), whom he afterwards came to know more intimately.

From Tours Fortunatus went to Poitiers, attracted, no doubt, by the renown of St. Radegunde and her monastery. This circumstance had a decisive influence on the remainder of his life. Radegunde, daughter of the King of Thuringia, had been taken prisoner by Clotaire I, the son of Clovis, after the defeat of her uncle, Hermanfried, and the conquest of her country (531). Hermanfried had slain her father. She became, against her will the wife of Clotaire. Her brother having been put to death by the Franks, she sought refuge with St. Medardus, Bishop of Vermandois (St-Quentin and Soissons), who caused her to take the veil, and she remained at Poitiers. The monastery of Poitiers was very large and contained about 200 religious. At first they lived without a definite rule, but about 567 Radegunde accepted that of St. Cæsarius of Arles. At this time, which was previous to the death of Caribert (568), she caused the consecration as abbess of her beloved adoptive daughter Agnes. It was at the same period that Fortunatus became the friend of the two women and took up his residence at Poitiers, where he remained till the death of Radegunde, 13 Aug., 587, Agnes, doubtless, having died shortly before. The closest friendship sprang up between them, Fortunatus calling Radegunde his mother and Agnes his sister. It was one of those tender and chaste friendships between ecclesiastics and pious women; similar, for example, to the relations between St. Jerome and the Roman ladies, delicate friendships enhanced by solid piety, confirmed in peace by a mutual love of God, and which do not exclude the charming child's play usually making feminine friendship. In this instance it brought about a constant interchange of letter in which the art and grace of Fortunatus found their natural vent. He was an epicure, and there were sent to him from the convent, milk, eggs, dainty dishes, and savoury meats in the artistic arrangement of which the cooks of antiquity exercised their ingenuity. He did not allow himself to be outdone and sent to his friends at one time flowers, at another chestnuts in a basket woven by his own hands. The little poems which accompanied them are not included in the works published by Fortunatus himself; it is probable that many of them are lost, no great importance being attached to them. Circumstances provided him with the graver subjects which necessitated the production of more serious works. About 568 Radegunde received from Emperor Justin a particle of the True Cross, to which the monastery had been dedicated, and Fortunatus was commissioned to thank the emperor and empress for their gift. This religious event led him to write a series of poems (II, 1-6); two, the "Vexilla Regis Prodeunt" and the "Pange Lingua" (II, 6, 2), have been adopted by the Church. The vigorous movement of these poems shows that Fortunatus was not lacking in strength and seriousness. Two of this series are "figurate" poems, i.e. the letters of each verse, being arranged with due regularity, form artistic designs. It was one of the least happy inventions of this period of literary decadence.

Radegunde was in constant communication with Constantinople, for Amalafried, a cousin whom she dearly loved, had found refuge in the East where he was in the service of the Empire. Through Fortunatus Radegunde bewailed the sad lot of her country and her family; this long elegy, full of life and movement, and addressed to Amalafried, is one of the poets best and most celebrated works (Appendix, I). Another elegy deplores the premature death of Amalafried (Appendix, 3). The death of Galeswintha was also the occasion of one of those elegies in which Fortunatus shows himself at once so profound and so natural. This princess, the sister of Brunehild, was married to Chilperic, and had just been put to death by the order of her husband (569 or 570). Shortly before this Fortunatus had seen her arrive from Spain and pass through Poitiers in a silver chariot, and it was on this occasion she had won the heart of Radegunde. In recalling these things and in his portrayal of the mother of the unhappy young woman and their heart-breaking farewell, he succeeded, despite many rhetorical artifices, in depicting true grief. Other poems written at Poitiers deal with religious subjects. Fortunatus explained to his "sister" Agnes that his love was wholly fraternal (XI, 6), and devoted 400 lines to the praise of virginity (VIII, 3). While abounding in Christian sentiments he develops in a singularly realistic style the inconveniences of marriage, especially the physiological sufferings it imposes upon woman. It is probably an academic theme. Fortunatus also took part in ecclesiastical life, assisting at synods, being invited to the consecration of churches, all of which occasions were made the pretext for verses. He was especially associated with Gregory of Tours, who influenced him to make and publish a collection of his verses, with Leontius of Bordeaux, who sent him many invitations, and with Felix of Nantes, whom he praised, especially for the rectifying of a watercourse (III, 10). Fortunatus was now a celebrated man and a much-sought-for guest. Rendered more free by the death of his friends, he visited the Court of Austrasia, where he was received with greater evidence of regard than on a former occasion when he had arrived from Italy poor and unknown. To this period belongs his account of a journey on the Moselle which is full of graceful details (X, 10). He celebrates the completion of the basilica of Tours in 590 (X, 6), and in 591 the consecration of Plato, the new Bishop of Poitiers, an archdeacon of Gregory (X, 14). His predecessor Maroveus, whose barbarous name indicates that he was a person lacking in culture, had been entirely neglected by the Roman Fortunatus and his refined friends. This date is the last known to us, but some time before the end of the sixth century he succeeded to the See of Poitiers. In the episcopal list of that city he follows Plato and may have become bishop about 600. He was already dead when, shortly after this time, Baudonivia, a nun of the monastery of the Holy Cross, added a second book to Venantius' life of Radegunde.

The poems of Fortunatus comprise eleven book. The researches of Wilhelm Meyer have established the fact that Fortunatus himself published successively Books I-VIII, about 576; Book IX in 584 0r 585; Book X after 591. Book XI seems to be a posthumous collection. A Paris manuscript has happily preserved some poems not found in the eleven-book manuscripts. These poems form an appendix in Leo's edition. Apart from these occasional poems Fortunatus wrote between 573 and 577 a poem in four books on St. Martin. He follows exactly the account of Sulpicius Severus, but has abridged it to such an extent as to render his won work obscure unless with the aid of Sulpicius Severus. He wrote in rhythmic prose the lives of several saints, St. Albin, Bishop of Angers, St. Hilary and Pascentius, Bishops of Poitiers, St. Marcellus of Paris, St. Germanus of Paris (d. 576), his friend Radegunde, St. Paternus, Bishop of Avranches, and St. Medardus. The poetical merit of Fortunatus should not be overestimated. Like most poets of this period of extreme decadence, he delights in description, but is incapable of sustaining it; if the piece is lengthy his style runs into mannerisms. His vocabulary is varied but affected, and while his language is sufficiently exact, it is marred by a deliberate obscurity. These defects would render him intolerable had he not written in verse; poetic tradition, Boissier well says, imposed a certain sobriety. The prose prefaces which Fortunatus adds to each of his works exhibit a command of bombastic Latin scarcely inferior to the "Hisperica famina". His versification is monotonous, and faults of prosody are not rare. By his predilection for the distich he furnished the model for most Carlovingian poetry. Fortunatus, like a true Roman, expresses with delicate sincerity the sentiments of intimacy and tenderness, especially when mournful and anxious. He interprets with success the emotions aroused by the tragic occurrences of surrounding barbarian life, particularly in the hearts of women, too often in those times the victims of brutal passions. In this way, and by his allusions to contemporary events and persons, and his descriptions of churches and works of art, he is the painter of Merovingian society. His entire work is an historical document. Fortunatus has been praised for abstaining from the use of mythological allegory, despite the fact that his epithalamium for Sigebert is a dialogue between Venus and Love. Occasionally on encounters in his works the traditional academic themes, but in general he refrains from these literary ornaments less through disdain than through necessity. Every writer of occasional verse is perforce a realist, e.g. Statius in the "Silvæ", Martial in his epigrams. In his portrayal of the barbarian society of Gaul Fortunatus exhibits the manner in which contemporary Christian thought and life permeated its gross and uncultured environment. Leaving aside the bishops, all of them Gallo-Romans, it is the women of the period, owing to native intuition and mental refinement, who are most sensitive to this Christian culture. They are the first to appreciate delicacy of sentiment and charm of language, even refined novelties of cookery, that art of advanced civilizations and peoples on whose hands time hangs heavily. From this point of view it may be said that the friendship of Fortunatus with Radegunde and Agnes mirrors with great exactness the life of sixth-century Gaul.

The best edition of Fortunatus is that of F. Leo and B. Krusch; the former edited the poems, the latter the prose writings in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Acut." (Berlin, 1881-85), IV.

Hamelin, De vitâ et operibus V. Fortunati (Rennes, 1873); Meyer, Der Gelegenheitdichter V. Fortunatus (Berlin, 1901); Leo, Venantius Fortunatus in Deutsche Rundschau (1882);, XXXII, 414-26; Bardenhewer, Patrology, tr. Shahan (Freiburg im B., St. Louis, 1908), 647-50.

PAUL LEJAY

Fort Wayne

DIOCESE OF (WAYNE CASTRENSIS).

The Diocese of Vincennes, Indiana, U.S.A., established in 1834, comprised the whole State of Indiana till the Holy See, on 22 September, 1857, created the Diocese of Fort Wayne, assigning to it that part of Indiana north of the southern boundary of Warren, Fountain, Montgomery, Boone, Hamilton, Madison, Delaware, and Randolph Counties, a territory of 17,431 square miles, numbering 20,000 Catholics, with 14 priests, 20 churches, and two religious institutions, with educational establishments of the Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. The Right Rev John Henry Luers was nominated first Bishop of Fort Wayne and consecrated in Cincinnati, Ohio, 10 January, 1858. He was born 29 September, 1819, in Germany, and emigrated to America in 1831. He was ordained priest in Cincinnati, 11 November, 1846. Entering upon the administration of the new diocese, he devoted himself zealously to the founding of new parishes and missions, provided a home for the orphans, and built a cathedral. In June, 1871, during a vacancy of the See of Cleveland, Ohio, he was called to that city to confer ordination on a number of seminarians. After the function, on his way to the train, he suffered an apoplectic stroke and fell dead (29 June, 1871). At the time of Bishop Luer's death there were in the Diocese of Fort Wayne 69 priests, 75 churches, 10 chapels, 1 hospital, 1 orphan asylum, 1 college, 11 academies for girls, 40 parochial schools, and a catholic population estimated at 50,000.

The Rev. Joseph Dwenger was then appointed to the see. He was born near Minster, Ohio, in 1837. Orphaned at an early age, he was educated by the Fathers of the Precious Blo od, entered their community, and was ordained priest 4 September, 1859. Appointed professor in the seminary of his community, he filled that position until 1862, and was then assigned to parochial work. From 1867 to 1872 he was occupied in preaching missions. He was consecrated 14 April, 1872. In 1874 Bishop Dwenger was the head of the first American pilgrimage to Rome. In 1875 he erected an Orphan asylum and manual labour school for boys at Lafayette. He was a zealous promoter of the parochial school system. In 1884 he attended the Third Plenary Council at Baltimore, and in the following March was deputed, with Bishops Moore and Gilmour, to present the decrees of the council to the Holy Father. In 1886 he erected an asylum for orphan girls at Fort Wayne. In 1888 and in 1891 he again went to Rome, the last time in the interest of the North American College. Soon after his return he was attacked by a lingering illness, to which he succumbed 22 January, 1893.

The Right Rev. Joseph Rademacher, Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee, was transferred to Fort Wayne, 13 July, 1893. He was born 3 December, 1840, in Westphalia, Michigan, and ordained priest 2 August, 1863, by Bishop Luers, to whose diocese he had been affiliated. In April, 1883, he was appointed Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee, and was consecrated 24 June. At Fort Wayne Bishop Rademacher applied himself assiduously to increase the number of churches, schools, and missions. In 1896 he remodelled the cathedral at an expense of $75,000. In 1898 his health gave way. Symptoms of mental collapse appeared and he had to relinquish the government of the diocese. He expired peacefully 12 January, 1900. During his illness, and until the appointment of a successor, Very Rev. J. H. Guendling, vicar-general and pastor of the cathedral, was administrator of the diocese.

The Rev. H. J. Alerding, pastor of St. Joseph's Church, Indianapolis, was appointed successor of Bishop Rademacher 30 Aug., 1900. He was born 13 April, 1845, in Germany. During his infancy his parents emigrated to the United States and settled in Newport, Kentucky. He was ordained priest by Bishop Maurice de St. Palais of Vincennes 22 September, 1868, and appointed assistant at St. Joseph's church, Terre Haute, where he remained till 1871, attending, besides, a number of missions. From October,1871, to August, 1874, he was pastor of Cambridge City, whence he was transferred to Indianapolis and entrusted with the organization of St. Joseph's parish, where he built the church, the school, and a parochial residence. In 1885 he published "A History of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Vincennes", a work of deep historical research and accuracy. Bishop Alerding was consecrated in the cathedral of Fort Wayne 30 November, 1900. Since then he has founded new parishes, aided struggling ones, reorganised the parochial school system, provided for the orphans and promoted all good works. He held a diocesan synod in the cathedral 11 November 1903. The statute's enacted were promulgated 19 March, 1904. Among other salutary regulations the establishment of six deaneries was decreed -- Fort Wayne, South Bend, Hammond, Logansport, Lafayette, and Muncie. In 1907, for the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the diocese, Bishop Alerding, published "A History of the Diocese of Fort Wayne, an elaborate historical work, covering the period from 1669 to 1907.

Diocesan statistics for 1908 give priests, secular, 128; religious, 71; churches with resident priest, 110; missions with churches, 43; stations, 6; chapels, 49; parochial schools, 82, with 14,252 pupils; orphan asylums, 2; orphans, 239; hospitals, 13; old people's homes, 2; Catholic population, 93,844. Educational Institutions: the University of Notre Dame, in charge of the Fathers of the Holy Cross; St. Joseph's College (Collegeville), conducted by the Fathers of the Precious Blood. For girls: academies, 11. The number of pupils in colleges and academies is 1262. Religious Communities. -- Men: Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross: Franciscans; Fathers and Brothers of the Precious Blood. Women: Sisters of the Holy Cross; Poor Handmaids of Christ; Franciscan Sisters (various branches); Dominican Sisters; Sisters of the Precious Blood; of Notre Dame; of St. Joseph; Of Providence; of the Holy Family; of St. Agnes. The following communities have novitiates in the diocese; The Fathers and Brothers of the Holy Cross at Notre Dame; the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, at Lafayette; the Sisters of the Holy Cross, at Notre Dame; the Poor Handmaids of Christ, at Fort Wayne; the Sisters of St. Joseph, at Tipton.

ALERDING, The diocese of Fort Wayne (Fort Wayne, 1907); The Catholic Directory (Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

BONAVENTURE HAMMER

Forty Hours' Devotion

Also called Quarant' Ore or written in one word Quarantore, is a devotion in which continuous prayer is made for forty hours before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. It is commonly regarded as of the essence of the devotion that it should be kept up in a succession of churches, terminating in one at about the same hour at which it commences in the next, but this question will be discussed in the historical summary. A solemn high Mass, "Mass of Exposition", is sung at the beginning, and another, the "Mass of Deposition", at the end of the period of forty hours; and both these Masses are accompanied by a procession of the Blessed Sacrament and by the chanting of the litanies of the saints. The exact period of forty hours' exposition is not in practice very strictly adhered to; for the Mass of Deposition is generally sung, at about the same hour of the morning, two days after the Mass of Exposition. On the intervening day a solemn Mass pro pace is offered -- if possible, at a different altar from the high altar upon which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. It is assumed that the exposition and prayer should be kept up by night as well as by day, but permission is given to dispense with this requirement when an adequate number of watchers cannot be obtained. In such a case the interruption of the devotion by night does not forfeit the indulgences conceded by the Holy See to those who take part in it.

HISTORY OF THE DEVOTION

Although the precise origin of the Forty Hours' Devotion is wrapped in a good deal of obscurity, there are certain facts which must be accepted without dispute. The Milanese chronicler Burigozzo (see "Archiv. Stor, Ital.", III, 537), who was a contemporary, clearly describes the custom of exposing the Blessed Sacrament in one church after another as a novelty which began at Milan, in May, 1537. He does not ascribe the introduction of this practice to any one person; but he gives details as to the church with which it started, etc., and his notice seems to have been actually written in that year. Less than two years afterwards, we have the reply of Pope Paul III to a petition soliciting indulgences for the practice. This is so important, as embodying an official statement of the original purpose of the devotion, that we copy it here: "Since [says the pontiff] . . . Our beloved son the Vicar General of the Archbishop of Milan at the prayer of the inhabitants of the said city, in order to appease the anger of God provoked by the offences of Christians, and in order to bring to nought the efforts and machinations of the Turks who are pressing forward to the destruction of Christendom, amongst other pious practices, has established a round of prayers and supplications to be offered both by day and night by all the faithful of Christ, before our Lord's Most Sacred Body, in all the churches of the said city, in such a manner that these prayers and supplications are made by the faithful themselves relieving each other in relays for forty hours continuously in each church in succession, according to the order determined by the Vicar . . . We, approving in our Lord so pious an institution, and confirming the same by Our authority, grant and remit", etc. (Sala, "Documenti", IV, 9; cf. Ratti in "La Scuola Cattolica" [1895], 204).

The parchment is endorsed on the back in a contemporary hand, "The first concession of Indulgence" etc., and we may feel sure that this is the earliest pronouncement of the Holy See upon the subject. But the practice without doubt spread rapidly, though the details cannot be traced exactly. Already before the year 1550 this, or some analogous exposition, had been established by St. Philip Neri for the Confraternity of the Trinita dei Pellegrini in Rome; while St. Ignatius Loyola, at about the same period, seems to have lent much encouragement to the practice, of exposing the Blessed Sacrament during the carnival, as an act of expiation for the sins committed at that season. As this devotion also commonly lasted for a period of about two days or forty hours, it seems likewise to have shared the name "Quarant' Ore"; and under this name it is still maintained in many places abroad, more especially in France and Italy. This form of the practice was especially promoted by the Oratorian Father, Blessed Juvenal Ancina, Bishop of Saluzzo, who has left elaborate instructions for the carrying out of the devotion with greater solemnity and decorum. It seems that it is especially in connection with these exercises, as they flourished under the direction of the Oratorian Fathers, that we trace the beginning of those sacred concerts of which the memory is perpetuated in the musical "Oratorios" of our greatest composers. Elaborate instructions for the regulation of the Quarant' Ore and for an analogous devotion called "Oratio sine intermissione" (uninterrupted prayer) were also issued by St. Charles Borromeo and will be found among the Acta Mediolanensis Ecelesiae". However, the most important document belonging to this matter is the Constitution "Graves et diuturnae" of Pope Clement VIII, 25 Nov., 1592. In the presence of numberless dangers threatening the peace of Christendom and especially of the distracted state of France, the pontiff strongly commends the practice of unwearied prayer. "We have determined", he says, "to establish publicly in this Mother City of Rome (in hac alma Urbe) an uninterrupted course of prayer in such wise that in the different churches (he specifies the various categories), on appointed days, there be observed the pious and salutary devotion of the Forty Hours, with such an arrangement of churches and times that, at every hour of the day and night, the whole year round, the incense of prayer shall ascend without intermission before the face of the Lord". It will be noticed that, as in the case of the previously cited Brief of Paul III, the keynote of this document is anxiety for the peace of Christendom. "Pray," he says, "for the concord of Christian princes, pray for France, pray that the enemies of our faith the dreaded Turks, who in the heat of their presumptuous fury threaten slavery and devastation to all Christendom, may be overthrown by the right hand of the Almighty God". Curiously enough the document contains no explicit mention of the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, but inasmuch as this feature had been familiar on such occasions of public prayer both in Milan and at Rome itself for more than half a century, we may infer that when the pope speaks of "the pious and salutary devotion of the Forty Hours" he assumes that the prayer is made before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. More than a century later Pope Clement XII, in 1731, issued a very minute code of instructions for the proper carrying out of the Quarant' Ore devotion. Upon this, which is known as the "Instructio Clementina", a word must be said later.

With regard to the actual originator of the Forty Hours' Devotion there has been much difference of opinion. The dispute is too intricate to be discussed here in detail. On the whole the evidence seems to favour the conclusion that a Capuchin Father, Joseph Piantanida da Fermo, was the first to organise the arrangement by which the Forty Hours' Exposition was transferred from church to church in Milan and was there kept up without interruption throughout all the year (see Norbert in the" Katholik", Aug., 1898). On the other hand, the practice of exposing the Blessed Sacrament with solemnity for forty hours was certainly older; and in Milan itself there is good evidence that one Antonio Bellotto organized this in connexion with a certain confraternity at the church of the Holy Sepulchre as early as 1527. Moreover, a Dominican, Father Thomas Nieto, the Barnabite, St. Antonio Maria Zaccharia, and his friend, Brother Buono of Cremona, known as the Hermit, have all been suggested as the founders of the Forty Hours' Devotion. The claims of the last named, Brother Buono, have recently been urged by Bergamaschi ("La Scuola Cattolica", Milan, Sept., 1908, 327-333), who contends that the Quarant' Ore had been started by Brother Buono at Cremona in 1529. But the evidence in all these cases only goes to show that the practice was then being introduced of exposing the Blessed Sacrament with solemnity on occasions of great public calamity or peril, and that for such expositions the period of forty hours was generally selected. That this period of forty hours was so selected seems in all probability due to the fact that this was about the length of time that the Body of Christ remained in the tomb, and that the Blessed Sacrament in the Middle Ages was left in the Easter Sepulchre. St. Charles Borromeo speaks as if this practice of praying for forty hours was of very ancient date; and he distinctly refers it to the forty hours our Lord's Body remained in the tomb, seeing that this was a period of watching, suspense, and ardent prayer on the part of all His disciples. In all probability this was the exact truth. The practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament with some solemnity in the Easter Sepulchre began in the thirteenth or fourteenth century; and seems in some places, e.g. at Zara in Dalmatia, to have been popularly known as the "Prayer [or Supplication] of the Forty Hours". From this the idea grew up of transferring this figurative vigil of forty hours to other days and other seasons. The transference to the carnival tide was very obvious, and is likely enough to have occurred independently to many different people. This seems to have been the case with Father Manare, S.J., at Macerata, c. 1548, but probably the idea suggested itself to others earlier than this.

RUBRICAL REQUIREMENTS

The "Instructio Clementina" for the Quarant' Ore which has been already mentioned stands almost alone among rubrical documents in the minuteness of detail into which it enters. It has also been made the subject of an elaborate commentary by Gardellini. Only a few details can be given here. The Blessed Sacrament is always, except in the patriarchal basilicas, to be exposed upon the high altar. Statues, pictures, and relics in the immediate neighbourhood are to be removed or covered. At least twenty candles are to be kept burning day and night. The altar of exposition is only to be tended by clerics wearing surplices. Everything is to be done, e.g. by hanging curtains at the doorways, by prohibiting the solicitation of alms, etc., to promote recollection and silence. There must be continuous relays of watchers before the Blessed Sacrament; and these, if possible, should include a priest or cleric in higher orders who alone is permitted to kneel within the sanctuary. At night the great doors of the church must be closed and women excluded. No Masses must be said at the altar at which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. Precise regulations are made as to the Masses to be said at the time of Exposition and Deposition. Except on greater feasts, this Mass must he a solemn votive Mass de Sanctissimo Sacramento. No bells are to be rung in the church at any private Masses which may be said there while the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. When a votive Mass de Sanctissimo Sacramento cannot be said, according to the rubrics, the collect of the Blessed Sacrament is at least to be added to the collects of the Mass. No Requiem Masses are permitted. As already intimated, the Mass pro pace is to be sung on the second day of the Exposition; and the litanies of the saints are to be chanted under conditions minutely specified, at the conclusion of the procession both at the opening and close of the Quarant' Ore. Finally it may be said that this "Instructio Clementina" is the foundation upon which is based the ritual for all ordinary Benedictions and Expositions. For example, the incensing of the Blessed Sacrament at the words "Genitori Genitoque" of the "Tantum Ergo", the use of the humeral veil, and the giving of the Blessing with the monstrance, etc., are all exactly prescribed in section thirty-one of the same document.

WILDT in Kirchenlex., V, 151-155; THURSTON, Lent and Holy Week (London, 1904), III, 110-148; RAIBLE, Der Tabernakel einst und jetzt (Freiburg, 1908), 273-292; NORBERT, Zur Geschichte des vierzigstundigen Gebetes in Katholik, Aug., 1898, 15 sqq.; RATTI, in La Scuola Cattolica of Milan, Aug., 1985; and also BERGAMASHI, Dell' Origine delle SS. Quarantore (Cremona, 1897); GARDELLINI, in MUHLBAUER, Decreta Authenitica Cong. SS. Rituum, I. Further authorities are cited in the notes to the chapter of Lent and Holy Week just mentioned.

HERBERT THURSTON

Forty Martyrs

A party of soldiers who suffered a cruel death for their faith, near Sebaste, in Lesser Armenia, victims of the persecutions of Licinius, who, after the year 316, persecuted the Christians of the East. The earliest account of their martyrdom is given by St. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (370-379), in a homily delivered on the feast of the Forty Martyrs (Hom. xix in P.G., XXXI, 507 sqq.). The feast is consequently more ancient than the episcopate of Basil, whose eulogy on them was pronounced only fifty or sixty years after martyrdom, which is thus historic beyond a doubt. According to St. Basil, forty soldiers who had openly confessed themselves Christians were condemned by the prefect to be exposed naked upon a frozen pond near Sebaste on a bitterly cold night, that they might feeze to death. Among the confessors, one yielded and, leaving his companions, sought the warm baths near the lake which had been prepared for any who might prove inconstant. One of the guards set to keep watch over the martyrs beheld at this moment a supernatural brilliancy overshadowing them and at once proclaimed himself a Christian, threw off his garments, and placed himself beside the thirty-nine soldiers of Christ. Thus the number of forty remained complete. At daybreak, the stiffened bodies of the confessors, which still showed signs of life, were burned and the ashes cast into a river. The Christians, however, collected the precious remains, and the relics were distributed throught many cities; in this way the veneration paid to the Forty Martyrs became widespread, and numerous churches were erected in their honour.

One of them was built at Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and it was in this church that St. Basil publicly delivered his homily. St. Gregory of Nyssa was a special client of these holy martyrs. Two discourses in praise of them, preached by him in the church dedicated to them, are still preserved (P. G., XLVI, 749 sqq., 773 sqq.) and upon the death of his parents, he laid them to rest beside the relics of the confessors. St. Ephraem, the Syrian, has also eulogized the forty Martyrs (Hymni in SS. 40 martyres). Sozomen, who was an eye-witness, has left us (Hist. Eccl., IX, 2) an interesting account of the finding of the relics in Constantinople through the instrumentality of the Empress Pulcheria. Special devotion to the forty martyrs of Sebaste was introduced at an early date into the West. St. gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia in the beginning of the fifth century (d. about 410 or 427), received paticles of the ashes of martyrs during a voyage in the East, and placed them with other relics in the altar of the basilica which he had erected, at the consecration of which he delivered a discourse, still extant (P. L., XX, 959 sqq.) Near the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua, in the Roman Forum, built in the fifth century, a chapel was found, built, like the church itself, on an ancient site, and consecrated to the Forty Martyrs. A picture, still preserved there, dating from the sixth or seventh century, depicts the scene of the martydom. The names of the confessors, as we find them also in later sources, were formerly inscribed on this fresco. Acts of these martyrs, written subsequently, in Greek, Syriac and Latin, are yet extant, also a "Testament" of the Forty Martyrs. Their feast is celebrated in the Greek, as well as in the Latin Church, on 9 March.

J.P. KIRSCH

Ecclesiastical Forum

That the Church of Christ has judicial and coercive power is plain from the constitution given to it by its Divine Founder. (See COURTS, ECCLESIASTICAL.) This judicial jurisdiction is expressed by the word Forum, the Latin designation for a place containing a tribunal of justice. As the Church is a perfect society, she possesses within herself all the powers necessary to direct her members to the end for which she was instituted and she has a correlative right to be obeyed by those subject to her. This right is called jurisdiction, and it is the source of all the Church's action that is not derived from the power of Sacred orders. It is this jurisdiction which is the foundation of ecclesiastical law, both externally and internally binding, and from Apostolic times it has been put into practice by the Church's rulers. The public judicial power of the Church is explicitly mentioned in Holy Scripture (Matt. xviii, 17), and the exercise of it is also recorded (Acts, xv, 29). In other words, just as the civil state has the legitimate jurisdiction over its subjects to guide them to the end for which it is instituted, because it is a perfect society, so likewise the Church, being constituted by Christ as a perfect society, possesses within itself all the powers necessary for lawfully and effectively attaining the end for which it was established.

As the power of the Church extends not only to its individual members but also to the whole corporate body, not only to questions concerning the conscience but also to the public actions of its subjects, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is distinguished into that of the internal and external forum. The jurisdiction of the internal forum deals with questions concening the welfare of individual Christians and with their relation to God. Hence it is called the forum of conscience (Forum conscientiae). It is also denominated the forum of Heaven (forum poli) because it guides the soul on the path to God. The internal forum is subdivided into the sacramental or penitential, which is exercised in the tribunal of penance or at least is connected with it, and the extra penitential forum. Causes concerning the private and secret needs of the faithful can often be expedited outside the sacramental confession. Thus, vows may be dispensed, secret censures may be absolved, occult impediments of matrimony may be dispensed outside of the tribunal of penance. The internal forum deals therefore directly with the spiritual welfare of the individual faithful. It has refererence to the corporate body only secondarily, in as much as the good of the whole organization is promoted by that of the individual members. Owing to the nature of the civil state and the end for which it was instituted, it has no jurisdiction corresponding to the ecclesiastical forum of conscience. Finally, it may so chance that circumstances may bring about a conflct between the internal and external forum. Thus, for example, a marriage may be null and void in the forum of conscience, but binding in the external forum for want of judicial proofs to the contrary, and vice versa.

The Church's jurisdiction in the external forum has reference to matters touching the public and social good of the corporate body. It corresponds, consequently, very closely to the powers exercised by civil magistrates in affairs belonglng to their competence. While the external forum may busy itself with the concerns of individuals, it does so only in as far as these affect the public good. Thus the absolution of sins belongs to the internal forum, but the concession of the faculty for performing such absolution is an act of the external forum. The jurisdiction of the external forum is subdivided into voluntary and necessary. Voluntary, or extra-judicial, is that which a superior can exercise towards those who invoke his power, or even against those who are unwilling, but without his using the formalities prescribed in law. Necessary or contentious jurisdiction is that which the judge employs in punishing crimes or deciding disputes according to prescribed forms. In general, the acts of jurisdiction of the external forum are the decision of disputes concerning faith, morals or discipline, the making and enforcing the of laws, the punishment of transgressors of ecclesiastical statutes, and the like.

The competence of the ecclesiastical forum arises either from the persons or the cause to be judged. As to persons, all clerics are subject to its judgments both in civil and criminal causes (see IMMUNITIES, CLERICAL). As to causes: they may be purely civil, or ecclesiastical, or they may be mixed. Purely civil causes would not of themselves properly belong to the Church's forum, as she recognizes the full competence of the state in such matters. Accidentally, however, such causes might be brought before the ecclesiastical judge. This supposes, however, the practical recognition of the Church's forum by the civil power. Ecclesiastical causes themselves are called civil when they concern either spiritual things, as the sacraments, or matters connected with them, as church property, the right of patronage, etc. They are called criminal when they involve the dealing with delinquents guilty of simony, apostasy, schism and the like. They are called mixed causes when they are subjects proper for decision by either the ecclesiastical or civil forum, as usurious contracts, concubinage, violations of the Church's peace, etc. Causes are likewise called mixed when they have both a spiritual and temporal end. Thus matrimony, in its sacramental nature as to validity or nullity, belongs to the Church; in its temporal aspect, as to the property of married persons and similar things, it may be dealt with by the civil tribunals. To this class of mixed causes can also be reduced the suppression of heresy, where Church and State cooperate with each other for the maintenance of the integrity or the faith and the preservation of the civil peace. Finally, many causes, of their nature civil, are accounted mixed by canonists, either because the State relinquished them to the Church's tribunals or custom gradually caused them to be relegated to the ecclesiastical forum, such as the recognition of last wills and testaments, the care of the poor, etc

The punishments which may be inflicted by the external ecclesiastical forum are not only spiritual as excommunication, but also temporal or corporal. As regards the infliction of the death penalty, canonists generally hold that ecclesiastical law forbids inferior church tribunals to decree this punishment directly, but that the pope or a general council has the power, at least indirectly, in as much as they can demand that a Catholic state inflict this punishment when the good of the Church requires it. Finally, they hold that there is no valid argument to prove that the direct exercise of this power does not fall within the competence of the ecclesiastical forum, although it was the custom of the latter to hand over the criminal to the secular arm for the infliction of the death penalty. The encroachments of the civil power on the Church's jurisdiction have in our days, practically though unwarrantly, restricted the ecclesiatical forum to spiritual causes only.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Fossano

DIOCESE OF FOSSANO (FOSSANENSIS).

Fossano is a town in the province of Cuneo, in Piedmont, Northern Italy, a suffragan of Turin, situated in a fertile plain on the banks of the Stura; it is an important centre for agriculture and farm-stock; other industries are silk-weaving, paper-making, and basket-making; there are also some mineral springs in the neighbourhood. In the early middle ages it was an independent commune, but it soon passed under the sway of the Marquesses of Saluzzo, who in turn with the House of Asti held it from 1251 to 1305. From 1305 to 1314 it belonged to King Robert of Naples, when it passed into the hands of the House of Savoy, whose head dwelt there for some time in the "castello" or stronghold still shown. In 1396 the town was destroyed by Facino Cane, the visconti condottiere, then planning a "stato" of his own, inclusive of Alessandria, Novara and Tortona. In 1535 it was taken by the French during their invasion of Lombardy; in the following year they were driven out by Charles V, after a long siege.

The French again captured it in 1796, and in 1799 the Austrians, under General Melas, drove out the French under Championnet. The painter and architect, Ambrogio da Fossano, better known as "Il Borgognone", designer of the Certosa at Pavia, was a native of Fossano.

The episcopal see dates from 1592; from 1801 to 1817 it was suppressed, after which it was again re-established. It contains 25 parishes and 36,000 souls, has 3 religious houses for men and 13 for women, 2 educational establishments for boys and 2 for girls, 5 charitable institutions, and one weekly Catholic paper.

U. BENIGNI

Fossombrone (Forum Sempronii)

DIOCESE OF FOSSOMBRONE (FOROSEMPRONIENSIS).

Diocese in the province of Pesaro, Italy, a suffragan of Urbino. The ancient Forum Sempronii took its name from Caius Sempronius Gracchus. The city and its environs abound in antiquities, especially inscriptions. Noteworthy remains are the statue of the god Vertumnus; the Furlo Pass, constructed by the Emperor Vespasian (70-76) to shorten the passage of that mountain; and the bridge of Trajan (115) near Calmazzo, and that of Diocletian (292), both over the Metaurus. Near the Furlo Pass, during the Gothic War, was fought (552) the battle of Petra Pertusa (the pierced rock), in which Totila was overcome by the Byzantine general, Narses. Fossombrone was included in the Donation of Pepin, but remained subject to the Duchy of Spoleto until 1198, when it passed under papal rule. It was then held in fief of the Holy See by different families: by the house of Este (1210-28), the Malatesta (1340-1445), the Montefeltro (of Urbino, 1445-1631); from 1500 to 1503 it acknowledged the rule of Caesar Borgia.

Christianity was introduced there, according to Ughelli, by St. Felicianus of Foligno. The martyrologies mention several martyrs: Aquilinus, Geminus, Gelasius, Magnus and Donata, also a bishop, Timothy, and his daughter (4 February). The first bishop of certain date is Innocent, present at the synods of Pope Symmachus (504). Other noteworthy bishops were: Fulcuinus (1086), present at the Council of Salona as legate of Gregory VII to receive the oath of fidelity to the Holy See from Demetrius, King of Dalmatia; St. Aldebrando Faberi (1119), who died at the age of 118 years; Blessed Riccardo (date uncertain); Addo Ravieri (1379), poet and littérateur; Paul of Middelburg (1494), of German origin, a skilful mathematician, and author of a work on the computation of Easter; Giacomo Guidiccioni (1524), a famous poet and writer; Cardinal Nicolò Ardinghelli (1541), who left an important correspondence; Giulio Aloisini (1808), internuncio in Russia. The diocese has 20,050 inhabitants, 40 parishes, 1 educational institution, a Capuchin convent, and three religious houses of women.

U. BENIGNI

Fossors

(Lat. fossores, fossarii from fodere, to dig).

Grave diggers in the Roman catacombs in the first three or four centuries of the Christian Era. The determination, from the first days of the Church, of the ecclesiastical authorities to inter the mortal remains of the faithful in cemeteries reserved exclusively to Christians, brought into existence the class of workmen known as fossors. The duties of the Christian fossor corresponded in a general way with those of the pagan vespillones, but whereas the latter were held in anything but esteem in pagan society, the fossors from an early date were ranked among the inferior clergy of the Church (Wieland, Ordines Minores, 1897), an excellent example of the elevating influence of Christianity on the lowest orders of society. An interesting literary reference to fossors, in their character of one of the orders of the inferior clergy, is found in the "Gesta apud Zenophilum", an appendix to the work of St. Optatus of Mileve against the Donatists. Speaking of the "house in which Christians assembled" at Cirta in the year 303, during the persecution of Diocletian, this writer enumerates first the higher orders of the clergy present, from the bishop to the subdeacons, and then mentions by name the fossors Januarius, Heraclus, Fructuosus, et ceteris fossoribus ("Opp. S. Optati", ed. C. Ziwsa, in "Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat.", Vienna, 1893, XXVI, 187). St. Jerome also (Ep. xlix) alludes to fossors as clerici, and a sixth-century chronicle edited by Cardinal Mai (Spicil. Rom., IX, 133) enumerates the orders of the clergy as ostiarius, fossorius, lector, etc. At first the fossors seem to have received no regular salary, but were paid by individuals for the work accomplished; with the organization of the Church, however, they appear to have been paid from the common treasury. In the fourth century the corporation of fossors were empowered to sell burial spaces, as we learn from inscriptions. For example, in the cemetery of St. Cyriacus two women bought from the fossor Quintus a bisomus, or double grave, retro sanctos (near a martyr's tomb), and there are several other references to this practice. The corporation of fossors, there is good reason to believe, did not consist merely of the labourers who excavated the galleries of the catacombs; it included also the artists who decorated the tombs, as appears from another allusion in the "Gesta apud Zenophilum" already cited. According to this authority two fossors were brought before the judge (inductis et adplicitis Victore Samsurici et Saturnino fossoribus); when interrogated as to their calling, one replied that he was a fossor, the other that he was an antifex. The latter term at that period included the professions of painter and sculptor. Thus it would seem that this person who is generically referred to as a fossor is also an artist.

Among the representations of fossors in the catacombs the one best known, through Wiseman's "Fabiola", is that of the fossor Diogenes, discovered by Boldetti. The picture, which was seriously injured in an attempt to remove it from the wall, represents Diogenes with his pick over his right shoulder and a sack, probably containing his midday meal, on his left shoulder, while in his left hand he carries a staff with a light attached. The inscription reads: DIOGENES FOSSOR, IN PACE DEPOSITVS, OCTABV KALENDAS OCTOBRIS (the fossor Diogenes, interred in peace, the eighth day before the calends of October). The oldest fresco of a fossor, or rather of two fossors, dating from the latter half of the second century, is in one of the so-called Sacrament Chapel in the catacomb of St. Callistus. The figures are represented pointing toward three Eucharistic scenes, probably to indicate another of their duties, which was to exclude unauthorized persons from taking part in the liturgical celebrations held occasionally in the cemeteries in commemoration of martyrs. Representations of fossors are usually near the entrance of the subterranean cemeteries.

KRAUS in Real-Encyk. der christlichen Alterth=FCmer (Freiburg, 1882), s. v.; NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Roma Sotterranea (London, 1878); VENABLES in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v.; KAUFMANN, Manuale di archeol. cristiana (Rome, 1907).

MAURICE M. HASSETT

John Gray Foster

Soldier, convert, b. at Whitfield, New Hampshire, U.S.A., 27 May, 1823; d. at Nashua, New Hampshire, 2 September, 1874. After graduating at the West Point Military Academy in 1846, he served as a lieutenant in the Engineer Corps during the Mexican War, where he was wounded at the battle of Molino del Rey. A service on the Coast Survey, 1852-54, brought him promotion to a first lieutenancy and assignment as assistant professor of engineering at West Point, where he was stationed from 1855 to 1857.

When the Civil War broke out Foster was in command at Fort Moultrie, Charleston harbour, and during the night of 26 December, 1860, succeeded in transferring the garrison under his command to Fort Sumter, in the subsequent defence of which he took so conspicuous a part as to earn the brevet rank of major. He was commissioned a brigadier-general of volunteers, 23 October, 1861, and assisted in Burnside's North Carolina expedition. It was at this time that his conversion occurred, his baptism taking place in New York, 4 November, 1861. He was commander of the Department of North Carolina, during 1862-3, with the rank of major-general. The combined Departments of Virginia and North Carolina were assigned to him from July to November, 1863, and then that of Ohio, which he had to relinquish, owing to injuries received by a fall from his horse. He next aided Sherman in the reduction of Charleston, and for gallant services in the capture of Savannah was breveted brigadier-general in the regular army. During 1865-6 he was in command of the Department of Florida, and then superintended various river and harbour improvements. In the harbours of Boston and Portsmouth he conducted, with great ability and success, important submarine operations, an experience which added the value of direct experience to his work on "Submarine Blasting in Boston Harbor" (New York, 1869) and his articles in various periodicals on engineering subjects, which received high professional approval.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Fothad

Surnamed NA CANOINE ("of the Canon").

A monk of Fahan-Mura, County Doneval, Ireland, at the close of the eighth century. He became bard, a counsellor, and tutor to Aedh Oirnidh (the dignified), Ard Righ (Head King) of Ireland who ruled from 794 to 818. He is specially venerated in the Irish Church from the fact that, in 804, when he accompanied King Aedh in his expedition against the Leinstermen, he obtained from that monarch exemption of the clergy forever from military service. His literary gifts were so highly thought of that St. Aengus submitted his "Felire" to him for his approval, and in return, St. Fothad presented St. Aengus with a copy of his "Remonstrance", addressed to King Aedh, protesting against the conscription of ecclesiastics. This "Remonstrance", which was really a rhymed judicial opinion, was known as a canon or decree, and hence St. Fothad was ever after called "Fothad na Canoine". It commences thus "The Church of the living God let her alone, waste her not."

W.H. GRATTON-FLOOD

Constant Fouard

An ecclesiastical writer b. at Elbeuf, near Rouen, 6 Aug. 1837; his early life was a preparation for the work on which his fame rests. He studied the classics at Boisguillaume, philosophy at Issy (1855-1857), and made his theological studies at St-Sulpice, Paris (1857-61). Along his professors at Paris were Abbé John Logan, who remained throughout life the inspirer and mentor of his studies and Abbe Le Hir, who initiated him and his fellow disciple Vigouroux into Biblical science, to which they devoted their lives. He was ordained priest in 1861 and entered the "Solitude", the novitiate of the Sulpicians, but left on account of illness after several months without joining the society. He taught for some time at Boisguillaume, then pursued the study of classics at the college of Saint Barbara, Paris, obtained the degree of Licentiate in Letters, 1867, and resumed; the teaching of classics at Boisguillaume, taking the class of rhetoric, 1867-1876. His piety drawing him to sacred sciences, he was appointed by the State (1876) to the chair of Holy Scripture in the faculty of theology at Rouen; he continued however to reside at Boisguillaume and to share in the duty of governing the student-body.

Honours came to him: he was made doctor of theology (1877), canon of the cathedral of Rouen (1884) and member of the Biblical Commission (1903). His ecclesiastical science, his piety, his spiritual wisdom were continually at the service of religion in his native diocese. For the benefit of his studies he travelled in Palestine, Syria, Greece, and Italy. The Faculty of Theology being suppressed about 1884, his teaching ceased. His writings are: "La Vie de N-S Jésus-Christ" (1880); "Saint Pierre et les premières années du Christianisme" (1886); "Saint Paul, ses Missions" (1892); "Saint Paul, ses dernières annees" (1897); "Saint Jean et la fin de age apostolique" (posthumous, 1904). The dates witness, incidentally, to the extremely painstaking character of his labours. All these books form part of one grand work, "Les Origines de l'Eglise", which Fouard wrote as an answer to the presentation of the same subject by Renan, who like himself had seen a pupil of le Hir. Each suceessive book of the Abbé Fouard immediately gained a wide popularity and was translated into nearly all the language of Europe.

His work is esteemed for the interest of its narratives, the purity of its diction, its correctness in doctrine, its conservative but not reactionary critical viewpoint, its breadth and accuracy of erudition, and for its evidently sincere piety, the manifestation of a good and gentle spirit, loving God, delighting in nature, and earnestly desiring to do good to men. With one touch of genius or greater depth of feeling (gifts which were denied him), he might have fused the various elements of his writings into a truly great work. His works are not remarkable in originality of view or acuteness of critical insight, but present, as a whole, a faithful picture of early Christianity, satisfying to the Christian heart. Perhaps his most esteemed books are the two on Saint Paul. The English translation of his writings is exceptionally well done.

Bulletin des Anciens Eleves de St-Sulpice (Paris, 1904).

JOHN F. FENLON

Jean-Bertrand-Léon Foucault

A physicist and mechanician, b. at Paris, 19 Sept., 1819; d. there 11 Feb., 1868. He received his early schooling at home and showed his mechanical skill by constructing a boat, a mechanical telegraph, and a working steam-engine. He passed the examinations for the B.A. and began to study medicine. Later, unable to bear the sight of blood, he abandoned medicine and worked for Donné as preparator in his course on medical microscopy. His elementary mathematical and scientific training had been very deficient and he supplemented it as he became interested in invention and experiment. In 1845 he succeeded Donné as scientific editor of the "Journal des Débats". In 1850 he was awarded the Copley medal, the highest honour of the Royal Society of London, for his work showing the relation between mechanical energy, heat, and magnetism. The position of physicist of the Paris Observatory was created for him in 1855. A member of the Bureau of Longitudes (1862), he was finally elected to Academy in 1865. Those of Berlin and St. Petersburg, and the Royal Society of London also honoured him.

Foucault worked along several lines. With Finch he experimented upon the interference of red rays and their influence on daguerrotype plates, while with Regnault he studied binocular vision. We are indebted to him for the crucial experiment overtuning the corpuscular or emission theory of light, defended by Kepler, Newton, and Laplace. Following Arago's suggestion he used the rotating mirror of Wheatstone to determine the difference between the velocities of light in various transparent media. Contrary to the emission theory he found that light travels faster in air than in the denser medium water (17 May, 1860). Light was reflected from a mirror through a tube, containing the medium to be studied, to a concave reflector and back again to the mirror. If the mirror was rotated the image was observed to shift by an amount depending on the speed of light through the particular medium in the tube. Exceedingly accurate meaurements were made of this enormous velocity (about 186,000 miles per second) with an apparatus occupying only twelve feet of space. Foucault invented an automatic regulator for the feed of the Davy electric arc lamp and thus made electric lighting practicable. The Foucault pendulum was invented to demonstrate visibly the rotation of the earth; the one exhibited at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, was 220 feet long. The gyroscope with its intricate and puzzling movements was another device invented by him to show also the earth's motion around its axis. This gained for him the cross of the Legion of Honour. Foucault currents are heating currents of electricity developed in a disc of metal rotating between the poles of a strong magnet. He had observed and reported this effect in 1855. As physicist at the observatory he applied himself also to the improvement of large telescopic lenses and reflectors, devising a method for silvering the surface of a glass reflector. The mercury interrupter used the induction coil and an excellent form of engine governor are also due to him. Foucault at first appeared careless in the performance of his religious duties but in later years he was a practical Catholic. A stroke of paralysis put an untimely end to his useful work, just as he was about to enjoy the comforts of a well-equipped laboratory. His contributions to science are found in the "Comptes rendus", "Procés verbaux de la Société Philomathique", and "Bibliothèque d'Instruction populaire". His collected works have been put in order by C.M. Gabriel and published by his mother, "Recueil des Travaux Scientifiques de Léon Foucault" (Paris, 1878).

WILLIAM FOX

Foulque de Neuilly

A popular Crusade preacher, d. March, 1202. At the end of the twelfth century he was curé at the church of Neuilly-sur-Marne, in the Diocese of Paris (now the department of seine-et-Oise). According to Jacques de Vitry he once led an irregular life, but experienced a sudden conversion. Ashamed of his ignorance, he went to Paris to study under Pierre, a chanter of Notre Dame. It was not long before his master noticed his earnestness and had him preach in the church of Saint-Séverin before a number of students. His eloquence was so great that he was thought to be inspired by the Holy Ghost. Large crowds assembled to hear him in the Place Champeaux where he was wont to preach. He was especially severe in his denunciation of usurers and dissolute womwn. In 1195, according to Rigord with the assent of the Bishop of Paris, he began to preach in neighourhood of Paris, and soon afterwards met with successively in Normandy, at Lisieux and Caen, later at Burgundy, Picardy, Flanders. He was credited with power to work miracles, and from every quarter the sick were brought to him, whom he cured by the laying on of hands and by the sign of the cross. After 1198 he preached the Fourth Crusade amid much popular enthusiasm. He declared later that in three years he had given the cross to 200,000 persons. According to Jean de Flixecourt, it was Pierre le Chantre who pointed out his ability as a preacher to Innocent III. In November, 1198, the pope conferred upon him the necessary powers, with the right of choosing his assistants among the secular clergy (Historiens de France, XIX, 369). The chief of these were Pierre de Proussi, Rustache, Abbot of Flai, and Herloin, a monk of Saint-Denis. Herloin even led a band of Breton Crusaders as far as Saint-Jean d'Acre. In 1200 many nobles of Northern France had taken the cross. On the nineteenth of March of that year Foulque preached at Liège (Hist. de France, XVIII, 616). After Boniface of Montserrat had been chosen leader of the crusade Foulque gave him the cross at Soissons. In 1201 he assisted at the chapter of Cîteaux with Boniface, and entrusted to the Cistercians a portion of the alms he had collected for the Holy Land. There used to repair the ramparts of Acre and Tyre, but he had aroused distrust, and his later success was slight. He returned to Neuilly, where he restored the parish church, which is still in existence. When Foulque died, he was regarded as a saint. He had taken a decisive part in the preparation for the Crusade of 1204.

LOUIS BREHIER

Foundation

(Lat. fundatio; Ger. Stiftung)

An ecclesiastical foundation is the making over of temporal goods to an ecclesiastical corporation or individual, either by gift during life or by will after death, on the condition of some spiritual work being done either in perpetuity or for a long time. It would be difficult to say exactly when foundations, as distinct from oblations or offerings, began to be considered as a normal means of ecclesiastical support. Offerings which were given on the occasion of some ecclesiastical ministration are a distinctive feature of the Apostolic Church. In early Christian times (the first three centuries) these offerings were spontaneous, but in the course of time the Church had to exercise her right to demand support from the faithful. The custom of giving and consecrating the first-fruits (primitiœ) to God and the maintenance of His ministers appears to have lasted until about the fifth century. Quite ancient also are the decimœ, or tithes (not necessarily a tenth): a portion of the harvest, or goods, or wealth, offered for the same purpose of maintenance of the clergy and for the due preservation of the services of the Church; this also has now almost entirely disappeared (see TITHES). Such popular contributions are often mentioned in early Christian writers, e.g. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. xliii, in Ep. I. ad Cor., ch. xvi; St. Jerome, vol. VI, in c. iii Malachiæ; St. Augustine, "Enarratio in Ps.", cxlvi. Under Emperor Constantine the mutual relations of the Church and State were readjusted; the prerogatives of the Church and the sphere of her action were enlarged. Having obtained political recognition, she acquired also the right of accepting donations and legacies, which, as a rule, were set apart by the bishops for the erection and maintenance of hospitals for the sick, orphan asylums, and homes for the aged and those destitute of all other means of support. At a Synod of Orléans (541) it was enacted that if an overlord wished to have an ecclesiastical district established on his property he must previously make a competent provision in land for the maintenance of the church and of the ecclesiastics who were to serve it. To the voluntary offerings made to the clergy must be added the numerous legacies which the Church began to receive from the converted barbarian peoples from the sixth and seventh centuries on; also, at an earlier date, the contributions of corn and wheat granted annually out of the public granaries by order of Constantine. In the West these revenues were usually divided into four parts, and allotted respectively to the bishop, the clergy, the poor, and the care of the ecclesiastical buildings. At the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century the energy displayed by the clergy in political affairs gave rise to a spirit of public enterprise which manifested itself in the formation of industrial guilds and the creation of charitable institutions, such as orphan asylums, foundling homes, hospitals, houses for the aged and infirm, hospices, and leper-hospitals, the majority of which were liberally endowed. For an account of this wonderful era of popular generosity, see Thomassin, "Vetus ac nova eccles. disciplina", III, 1-30; and Lallemand, "Hist. de la Charité" (Paris, 1906).

In general, the Church now derives its support mainly from voluntary offerings, civil aid or subsidy, and pious foundations. Foundations for pious uses may come under any one of the following heads: legacies for Masses; legacies to a particular diocese, church, school, etc.; to a charitable institution, e. g. an orphanage or a hospital; to any society established for an educational or charitable purpose, or in general for a religious end.

Foundations are contracts; therefore there must be mutual consent between the founder and the administrator of the institute receiving the gift. Moreover, there is the obligation of performing some work specified in the deed of foundation. The consent of the bishop, or, in the case of a regular community, the consent of the regular prelate, must be obtained, since it would not be just that ecclesiastical institutions should be placed under obligations which they are unable to fulfil (Sacred Congregation of the Council, 23 Nov., 1697). Benedict XIV considers supervision of the execution of pious legacies one of the most solemn and important duties of a bishop (De Synodo, Bk. XIII). The Council of Trent says (Sess. XXII, ch. ix): "The administrators, whether ecclesiastical or lay, of the fabric of any church whatsoever, even though it be a cathedral, as also of any hospital, confraternity, charitable institutions called 'montes pietatis', and of any place whatsoever, shall be bound to give in once a year an account of their administration to the ordinary, all customs and privileges to the contrary being set aside; unless it should happen that, in the institution and regulations of any church or fabric, it has been otherwise expressly provided. But if from custom, or privilege, or some regulation of the place, their account has to be rendered to others deputed thereunto, in that case also the ordinary shall be employed jointly with them, and all acquittances given otherwise shall be of no avail to the said administrators."

In the list of questions to be answered by bishops on their Roman visits ad limina the Congregation of Propaganda asks the following (nos. 49, 50): Are there any pious foundations in the diocese or legacies bequeathed for pious purposes? Are the proceeds of such bequests properly administered and the canons relating to such matters attended to? (See also the Constitution of Leo XIII affecting congregations of simple vows and known as "Conditæ a Christo", 8 Dec., 1900.) The bishop by a general statute may stipulate that foundations are only to be accepted under certain conditions. It is to be noted that acceptation without the consent of the bishop does not invalidate the legacy, but it is in the power of the bishop to rescind the contract if he judge it proper, although in the case of Masses in perpetuity Urban VIII approved a decree which postulates the consent of the bishop as necessary before such obligation can be incurred. The founder can, on the occasion of his gift, make any reservations that please him, provided the conditions are possible and fitting, are in no way adverse to the Divine and natural law, and are admitted by the bishop. The specific works which have to be fulfilled must be set forth in the deed of foundation. On the other hand, the founder, or his heirs, and the bishop cannot change the terms of a foundation once canonically erected, especially if the change would be to the detriment of a third person.

In the decrees of Urban VIII, "Cum Sæpe" (21 Jan., 1625), and Innocent XII, "Nuper a congregatione" (23 Dec., 1697), it is ordered that the stipulated Masses or other works must be fulfilled as a matter of justice; and, if not fulfilled, those responsible for the omission sin gravely and are bound to restitution. Money left as a foundation must be invested as soon as possible. A list of founded Masses is to be kept in a conspicuous place in the church; and when the Masses have been celebrated the fulfilment of the obligation is to be noted in a book kept for that purpose. The obligation of a foundation ceases absolutely when the income or principal is lost without fault on the part of anyone; but non-fulfilment, even for a lengthy period, does not prescribe against a foundation in perpetuity. The reduction of a foundation obligation is a matter for the judgment and decision of the Holy See, although it is not uncommon for bishops to receive faculties to make such reduction. Condonation and absolution for past omissions in the fulfilment of foundation obligations belong also to the Holy See, though here again bishops usually receive triennial faculties to act in such circumstances. Commutation of the wishes of the founder similarly belongs to the Holy See; but if it is merely a matter of interpretation of the wishes of the founder, bishops are competent to act, since they are the executors of all pious dispositions whether the endowment is given in the form of legacy, or the grant should take effect during the lifetime of the donor (Council of Trent, Sess. XII, ch. viii). It may be noted that, with regard to foundations for Masses, if the founder has given no definite instruction as to intention, the Congregation of the Council has often decided that the Masses must be applied for the founder, the interpretation being that he intended them for himself.

The synods of Westminster (Eng. tr., Stratford-on-Avon, 1886) have the following decrees: "It is fitting that the bishop select from the body of the chapter or from the body of the clergy prudent men to help him in the temporal administration of the diocese. He should often use their advice." "New obligations should not be accepted without the consent of the bishop. If those which he has already to fulfil appear to be too burdensome, or there does not exist a congruous endowment, let the priest apply to the bishop or lay the matter before him at the visitation." "If any of the faithful wish to found a daily or anniversary Mass the matter must be treated with the bishop, and the sum contributed for this object must be profitably invested so as to produce an annual interest for a perpetual endowment, as far as circumstances of time and places will allow, the canonical sanctions being observed." For similar legislation concerning Ireland see the "Acta et Decreta" of the plenary Synod of Maynooth, 1900 (Dublin, 1906), pp. 67-78. In the United States secular priests cannot accept foundations of Masses without the written permission of the bishop. Regulars must have the consent of their superiors general or provincials. No general rule has been laid down as to the requisite amount of the fund, each ordinary being free to fix the sum for his diocese. The councils of Baltimore urge that great circumspection should be used in accepting foundations, especially of perpetual Masses. It would seem advisable to accept foundations only on the following conditions: That the obligation to celebrate shall cease, if the fund, no matter from what cause, be either entirely lost or yield no income; that the ordinary shall have power to reduce the number of Masses if the interest on the capital, no matter for what reasons, becomes insufficient to make up the stipend fixed by the founder; that if, for whatever cause, the church in which the Masses are to be said is destroyed or deprived of a priest, the Masses can be said in any church to be designated by the ordinary.

In order to prevent the annulment or failure of a foundation particular attention should be given to the civil law of the place in question. In England (but not in Ireland) bequests to what the civil law regards as superstitious uses are void, as, for example, to maintain a priest, or an anniversary or obit, or a lamp in a church, or to say Masses for the testator's soul, or to circulate pamphlets inculcating the pope's supremacy. Legacies of money for charitable purposes, as for the use of schools, churches, etc., are valid; but if the money is to be laid out in the purchase of land for such purposes, the direction to purchase land shall be disregarded and the money shall be held for the charity. Land may be given by will for charitable purposes; but, by the Act 54 and 55 Vic., c. 73, the land must (with certain exceptions) be sold within a year from the testator's death; gifts of land for charitable purposes, otherwise than by will, are valid if the requirements of the Act 51 and 52 Vic., c. 42, are observed. Of these the principal ones are:

• the conveyance must be by deed;
• the gift must take effect twelve months before the death of the donor; and
• the gift must be without any reservation or condition for the benefit of the donor.

For the English legislation and Court practice concerning trusts and bequests for Catholic religious uses see, in general, Lilly and Wallis, "A Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics" (London, 1893), 135-167. In the United States property cannot legally be devised to a corporation (e. g. to a church when incorporated) unless such corporation is authorized by its charter to receive bequests by will. Many theologians believe that bequests for religious and charitable purposes are valid and binding in conscience, even though null according to law; however, D'Annibale does not agree (Summula Theol. Mor., II, 339).

For the ecclesiastical legislation of the Diocese of Quebec see "La discipline du diocèse de Quebec" (Quebec, 1895), 131; for the ecclesiastico-civil law of the Province of Quebec, Mignault, "Le droit paroissial" (Montreal, 1893), 138, 260-62. (See PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL; MASS; ENDOWMENT.)

For the law of ecclesiastical foundations in Germany see Sägmüller, "Kirchenrecht" (Freiburg, 1904), III, 800-3; and for the German civil law, Görtz in "Staatslexikon" (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1904), V, 574-78. For France see Bargilliat, "Prælectiones Jur. can." (Paris, 1907), nos. 1363-81; also André-Wagner, "Dict. de droit canonique" (2nd ed., Paris, 1901), II, 225-28. For the administration of the important ecclesiastical foundations in Hungary see Vering, "Kirchenrecht" (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1893), 149; in Baden: op. cit., 249-50.

TAUNTON, Law of the Church (London, 1906); SMITH, Elements of Eccles. Law (New York, 1886); BOUIX, De Episcopis (Paris, 1859); BARGILLIAT, Prœlect. Jur. can. (27th ed., Paris, 1907); LUCIDI, De visit. sac. liminum (3rd ed., Rome. 1883); VON OBERCAMP in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Causœ Piœ; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca prompta (ed. Rome, 1883).

DAVID DUNFORD

Foundling Asylums

Under this title are comprised all institutions which take charge of infants whose parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to care for them. At the present time many foundling asylums give shelter to orphans, but originally their activity was confined almost entirely to the rescue and care of foundlings in the strict sense, that is, infants who had been deliberately abandoned by their natural protectors. The practice of exposing to the risk of death by the elements or by starvation those infants whom they were unwilling to rear was very common among parents in the ancient pagan nations. Very general, too, was the more direct method of infanticide. Both methods had the sanction of law and public opinion. Lycurgus and the Decemviri decreed that deformed children should be killed in the interests of healthy citizenship. Aristotle advocated the enactment of laws which would prescribe the exposure of deformed infants and also of all infants in excess of a socially useful number, and which would make the practice of abortion compulsory whenever it was required by the public welfare. In his opinion these measures should find a place in the ideal state, and in every existing community where they were not already approved by the laws and customs (Politics, vii, 16). Even Pliny and Seneca thought it wise sometimes to allow deformed and superfluous infants to perish. In the city of Rome two places were formally set aside for the exposure of infants who were unwelcome to their parents. The proportion of abandoned children that was rescued was very small, and the purposes for which they were rescued were cruelly selfish. Under Roman law they were slaves.

The prevalence of these inhuman practices in Greek and Roman society is undoubtedly explained to a great extent by the pagan theory that neither the fœtus nor the newly born child was in the full sense a human being, as well as by the view that the individual existed for the sake of the State. Against both these beliefs Christianity laid down the doctrine that the human offspring is intrinsically sacred, and not a mere means to any end whatever. Hence we find that the first noteworthy condemnation of the practice of infant exposure, and the first systematic measures of rescue, came from Christian writers, priests, and bishops. Among the earliest of these were Lactantius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian. Influenced by the Christian teaching and practice, the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian decreed that infanticide should be punished by death, while Justinian relieved foundlings of the disability of slavery and placed them under the patronage of the bishops and prefects. The work of rescue was at first performed by individuals -- as, in France, by the deaconesses -- and the rescued infants were adopted into Christian families. A marble basin was placed at the church door in which unfortunate or inhuman parents could place their infants, with the assurance that the latter would be cared for by the Church. Although mention is made of a foundling asylum at Trier in the seventh century, the first one of which there is any authentic record was established in Milan by the archpriest Datheus in 787. In 1070 one was founded at Montpellier. Innocent III caused one to be erected in 1198 at Rome in connexion with the hospital of the Holy Ghost. The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries witnessed a great increase of foundling asylums, especially in Italy. Prominent among these were the institutions at Einbeck (1200), Florence (1316), Nuremberg (1331), Paris (1362), and Vienna (1380). During the Middle Ages most of the foundling asylums were provided with a revolving crib (tour, ruota, Drehladen) which was fitted into the wall in such a way that one half of it was always on the outside of the building. In this the infant could be placed, and then brought into the building by turning the crib. This device completely shielded the person who abandoned the child, but it also multiplied unnecessarily the number of children abandoned. Hence it has been almost universally abolished, even in Italy.

Foundling asylums did not, however, become general throughout Europe. In many places infants were still deposited at the doors of the churches, and thence taken in charge by the church authorities with a view to their adoption by families. In France the means of caring for foundlings had become quite inadequate during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The original foundling asylum of Paris seems to have been no longer in existence at this period; for the only institution of this nature that we hear of is the "Maison de la Couche", in charge of a widow and two servants. So badly was it managed that it had won the nickname of "Maison de la Mort". Through the all-embracing pity of Saint Vincent de Paul the place came under the direction of the Ladies of Charity, and through his influence the king and the nobles subscribed an annual sum of 40,000 francs to carry on the work of child saving. As a result there was a great increase in the number of foundling asylums in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

At present the care of foundlings varies considerably in different countries. Methods in France have undergone many changes since the middle of the eighteenth century. Under the government of the Revolution all foundlings were treated as wards of the nation, and for a time subsidies were paid to the mothers of illegitimate children. In 1811 this legislation was repealed, and the care of foundlings was transferred from the central authorities to the departments. At the same time it was decreed that every foundling asylum should be provided with a revolving crib. The consequence was that the number of abandoned children greatly increased, and the crib had to be abolished. By the law of 1874 every child under two years of age which is taken care of for hire outside the home of its parents becomes an object of public guardianship. Nevertheless, the actual work and expense of caring for foundlings are to a large extent undertaken by religious communities and private associations, both in asylums and in families. In Germany the asylum method seems never to have been as common as in Italy and in France. To-day that country has no foundling asylum in the strict sense of the term. The prevailing practice is to place the infant temporarily in an institution, usually an orphan asylum, and then to give it into the charge of a family. Both the public authorities and the religious communities follow this system. Since the days of Joseph II, foundling asylums have been rather general in Austria. When the mother engages herself to serve in the hospital for four months as a nurse, the child will be taken in and kept permanently, that is, until it reaches the age of ten or, in some asylums, of six years. In case the mother does not reclaim it at the end of this period, it is turned over to the magistracy of her legal residence. When the child is not taken subject to this condition, it is pLaced in a family as soon as a suitable one can be found. The asylum in Vienna is the largest in the world, having under its care either within or without its doors more than 30,000 children every year. Of the seventy odd thousand infants received during ten years only 902 were legitimate.

In proportion to its population, Italy exceeds all other countries in the number of institutions which are exclusively devoted to the care of foundlings. The number in 1898 was 113, and the number of children cared for 100,418. Most of these, however, were placed out in families, although the famous asylum of Florence (founded 1316) sheltered more than six thousand five hundred in the year 1899. The revolving crib has all but disappeared, owing to the conviction of competent authorities that it increased both illegitimacy and child-abandonment. In 1888 the province of Rovigo introduced a system according to which all mothers who acknowledge their infants are supported for one and one-half years. Experience has shown that this method is more favourable to the child and less expensive to the community. It has been extended to other provinces, was approved by the charity congress of Turin in 1899, and has been embodied in a bill introduced in the Italian Parliament. Russia has two very large foundling asylums, which were established by Catherine II. In 1899 the one at St. Petersburg cared for 33,366 children, while the Moscow institution had charge of 39,033. The policy of the latter is to induce the mother, if possible, to nurse her child, and to pay her for this service. If she does not appear, the infant is kept only a few weeks; it is then placed in the family of some peasant. In England the care of foundlings is in the hands of the Poor Law Guardians, religious and private associations, and the managers of the London Foundling Hospital. Those who are under the care of the guardians are sometimes kept in the general workhouse, and sometimes boarded out in families. The Catholic authorities place foundlings both in the private family and in the orphan asylum. The London Foundling Hospital (established 1739) seems to be the only institution of any considerable size which is devoted exclusively to this class of unfortunates. Scotland has never had a foundling asylum, but utilizes the workhouse and the system of boarding-out. These methods and the care of foundlings in orphan asylums by religious communities are the prevailing ones in Ireland.

About the only public institutions available for the care of foundlings m the United States are the county almshouses, or poorhouses. In most of the large cities there are foundling asylums under the management of individuals, private associations, or religious bodies and communities. In 1907 the Catholic infant asylum of Chicago had 676 inmates; that of Boston, 858; that of Milwaukee, 408; that of San Francisco, 480. In most places, however, foundlings are received in the Catholic orphan asylums, and are not separately classified in any official publication. The same practice obtains in many orphan asylums under the control of private persons and non-Catholic societies. The volume of the United States census (1904) on benevolent institutions gives the number of orphanages and children's homes, public, private, and religious, as 1075, and the number of inmates as 92,887. The majority of these children are of course not foundlings but orphans. On the other hand, the foundlings in these institutions undoubtedly form only a minority of the whole number in the country; for there is a considerable number in poorhouses, and a still larger number in families. Thus, the State of Massachusetts places all the foundlings committed to it in families under public supervision. Hence it is impossible to give even approximately the total number of foundlings in the country.

The ideal method of caring for foundlings is still as much a disputed question as most of the other problems of practical charity. One phase of the general question has, however, received a fairly definite answer. Experience and a due regard for the respective interests of the infant, the parent, the community, and good morals have led to the conclusion that in every case a reasonable amount of effort should be made to discover the parents and to compel them to assist as far as possible in caring for the child. The other method, which had its most thorough exemplification in the revolving crib, tends, indeed, to diminish infanticide, but it also increases illegitimacy, and by depriving the infant of its natural protector produces at least as high a rate of mortality as the inquisition system. Moreover, it throws upon public and private charity a burden that in many cases could be borne by the parents. Hence the present tendency is everywhere towards the method which aims to give the child the benefit of a mother's care and to keep alive in parents a proper sense of their responsibility.

A question more variously answered is, whether the maintenance of foundling asylums is wise. Those who take a stand for the negative point to the very high death-rate in these places (sometimes more than 90 per cent), to the smaller expense of the family system, and to the obvious fact that the family is the natural home for young children. Most of the Protestant countries and communities prefer the method of placing the foundling in a family. The positive arguments in its favour are unanswerable, but against them must be set the fact that it is not always possible to find suitable families who are willing to care for foundlings. Experience shows that sufficient homes of the right kind cannot now be found for all orphan children who have arrived at an age which renders them more attractive as well as more useful than utterly helpless infants. It would seem, therefore, that institutions are necessary which will shelter foundlings for a number of years. Nevertheless, the foundling asylum should endeavour to ascertain the identity of the parents, to induce the mothers to act as nurses to their infants in the institution, and to keep alive the natural bond between child and parent.

HENDERSON, Modern Methods of Charity (New York, 1904); DEVINE, Principles of Relief (New York, 1905); The St. Vincent de Paul Quarterly (New York); Proceedings of the National Conferences of Charities and Correction (Indianapolis, 1874-1908); BROGLIE, St. Vincent de Paul, tr. PARTRIDGE (London, 1899); RATZINGER, Armenpflege (Freiburg, 1884); EPSTEIN, Studien zur Frage, Findelanstalten (Prague, 1882); LALLEMAND, Histoire des enfants abandonnés et délaissés (Paris, 1885); RATZINGER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Findelhäuser; BERNARD in La grande encyclopédie, s. v. Enfants Trouvés.

JOHN A. RYAN.

Fountains Abbey

A monastery of the Cistercian Order situated on the banks of the Skell about two and a half miles from Ripon in Yorkshire, was established by thirteen Benedictine monks of St. Mary's Abbey, York. Wishing to observe a more strict discipline, they obtained in 1132 from Thurston, Archbishop of York, a grant of land near Ripon. Richard, the prior of St. Mary's, was the leader of the party. Leaving St. Mary's on 9 October, they reached Fountains on 26 December, 1132, and immediately placed themselves under St. Bernard, who sent Geoffrey of Clairvaux to teach them the Cistercian Rule. After two years of privation and poverty they decided to leave England and seek a home among their brethren abroad. This step was rendered unnecessary when Hugh, Dean of York, joined them, bringing with him money and property. He was followed by two canons of York, Serlo and Tosti, who brought still more wealth by means of which the suffering community was relieved and enabled to carry on the new foundation. In 1135 all their possessions were confirmed to them by King Stephen. The earliest buildings erected there were destroyed in 1146 by the followers of William, Archbishop of York, who thus wreaked their vengeance on Abbot Murdac, whom they considered the chief opponent of their master. The archbishop in after years made amends for the excesses of his adherents and expressed his deep sorrow for what had occurred. This loss did not check a rapid development; new buildings were immediately begun and that immense pile, the ruins of which still stand, was finished before the year 1250. In 1146 a colony of monks was sent to Bergen in Norway, and the monasteries of Sawley, Roche, Woburn, Meaux, Kirkstall, and Vandy were founded from Fountains. This period of prosperity was followed by one of want, caused by the constant inroads of the Scots. On account of this Edward II exempted the monks from all taxation (1319). Among the worthies of Fountains should be numbered Henry Murdac, its abbot and afterwards Archbishop of York (1147-1153), John de Pherd (de Fontibus) another abbot, one of the greatest architects of his day, who became Bishop of Ely in 1220, and John de Cancia, another renowned builder, who ruled over the abbey from 1220 to 1247. The names of thirty-eight abbots are known; the last but one was William Thirsk, executed at Tyburn for refusing the Oath of Supremacy (1536); the last abbot was Marmaduke Bradley who surrendered the abbey to the king in 1540. At the Dissolution there were thirty-one monks with the abbot, and the revenue was estimated at about £1000. Richard Gresham purchased the site for £1163; in 1596 Sir Stephen Proctor acquired it for £4500; the family of Messenger next held it; in 1786 Sir W. Aislabie bought it for £18,000; it is now owned by the Marquess of Ripon. The abbey with its offices stood in an enclosure of twelve acres, and the present ruins occupy two acres. The walls of the church, with one tower, still stand, and there are very substantial remains of the chapter house, cloister, refectory, and calefactory. These ruins are most carefully preserved. Some idea of the abbey's greatness may be gained from the fact that the church was 351 feet in length with a nave of 65 feet wide; the refectory was 108 feet by 45, and the cloister 300 feet by 42.

G.E. HIND

Jehan Fouquet

(Or Jean Fouquet)

French painter and miniaturist, b. at Tours, c. 1415; d. about 1480. He was perhaps the son of Huguet Fouquet, who about 1400 worked for the Dukes of Orléans at Paris. At the end of the fourteenth century French painting had reached a period of incomparable brilliancy. Everything heralded the Renaissance (see EYCK, HUBERT AND JAN VAN), and little was wanting to make it a distinctively French movement, which, however, the disasters of the monarchy prevented. Paris ceased to be the centre of the new intellectual life. Art, driven from its centre, retreated to the outlying provinces in the North, the East, and the South-East, to the Duchy of Burgundy. The principal centre was Bruges, while secondary centres were established at Dijon in Provence. Each of these had its masters and its school. The only remnant of truly French life found refuge in the valley of the Loire, in the neighborhood of Tours, since the time of St. Martin the true heart of the nation in every crisis of French history. Here grew up the first of our painters who possesses not only a definite personality but a French physiognomy. Fouquet was the contemporary of Joan of Arc, and his character is as national as that of the heroine herself. For the basis of his style we must look to the School of Burgundy, itself simply a variant of that of Bruges. Tours is not far from Bruges and Dijon, and in Fouquet's work there is always something reminiscent of Claux Sluter and of the Van Eycks. To this must be added some Italian mannerisms. It is not known on what occasion Fouquet went to Italy, but it was certainly about 1445, for while there he painted the portrait of Pope Eugene IV between two secretaries. This famous work, long preserved at the Minerva gallery, is now known only from a sixteenth century engraving. Filarete and Vasari speak admiringly of it, while Raphael paid it the honour of recalling it in his "Leo X" of the Pitti Palace.

Fouquet remained under the charm of the early Italian Renaissance. The influence of the bas-reliefs of Ghiberti and Della Robbia, the paintings of Masaccio, Paolo Uccello, Filippo Lippi, and Gentile da Fabriano which he saw at Florence and at Rome may always be traced in his work. He appears to have been in France in 1450. Some critics are inclined to believe that he made a second journey, for they find it hard to believe that Fouquet never saw the "Lives of St. Lawrence and St. Stephen" by Fra Angelico in the chapel of Nicholas V. It is these Italian works which most closely resemble his own. The harmonizing of the two Renaissance movements (North and South), the intimate and natural fusion of the genius of both in the creative soul of one French artist, without any effort or shadow of pedantry, narrowness, or system, constitutes Fouquet's charm and originality. If French character consists in a certain effacement of all racial characteristics, in the power of assimilation (cf. Michelet, Introduction à la philosophie del'histoire), no artist has ever been more "French" than Fouquet. Withal he does not lack the savour of his country. Without poetry or depth of thought, his style has at least two striking characteristics. In depicting the human countenance, he possessed to a rare degree the gift of taking life, as it were, by surprise, and not even Benozzo could tell a story as he could.

We know through a contemporary that Fouquet painted pictures in the church of Notre-Dame la Riche at Tours, but it is not known whether they were mural or altar-pieces. He is known to have been charged with the preparations for Louis XI's entry into the city in 1461. Of all his works, however, there remain to-day a half dozen portraits and about a hundred miniatures. The oldest of these portraits appears to be the "Charles VII" in the Louvre, a portrait striking for its sadness, its fretful expression, and the force of its ugliness and veracity. At the Louvre also is the portrait of "Guillaume Juvenal des Ursins", magnificently obese and bloated, radiant with gold. Another portrait has a curious history. It is that of Etienne Chevalier, the great patron of the painter, and was formerly to be seen in the church of Melun. The work is charming in breadth of style. The figure of St. Stephen presenting his client recalls Giorgione by its vigour and delicacy. In 1896 this piece found its way to the Berlin Museum. It formed part of a diptych, the other wing of which shows the Virgin, surrounded by angels, nursing the Infant Jesus. The Virgin is also a portrait, that of the beautiful Agnes Sorel of whom Chevalier was a favourite. This second wing is at Antwerp. The two parts, having been separated, were never reunited except for a short time at Paris during the Exposition of the French "Primitives" in 1904. Still another of Fouquet's portraits must be mentioned: the bust of a young man (Lichtenstein collection), dated 1456, which is admirable in the intensity of touch displayed in the colour scheme, with its greyish tone and deliberate reserve. This would be the master's best portrait, were it not for the precious little enamel at the Louvre, in which he himself is depicted in golden lines on a black background.

His work as a miniaturist at present comprises three series: (1) the fragments of the "Livre d'heures d'Etienne Chevalier" (1450-60), forty of which are at Chantilly, two at the Louvre, one at the Bibliothèque Nationale, and one at the British Museum; (2) twenty feuillets of the "Jewish Antiquities" of Josephus at the Bibliothèque Nationale. The second volume, discovered by Mr. Yates Thomson, was presented to the French Republic by King Edward VII in 1908 (Durrieu, op. cit. infra); (3) part of the illustrations of the "Chroniques de France" (Fr. 6465, Bibl. Nat.). To these must be added: (4) the frontispiece and miniatures for a French translation of the works of Boccaccio at the Royal Library of Munich (c. 1459), and the frontispiece of the statutes of the Order of St. Michael (c. 1462) at the Bibliothèque Nationale. The most important of these works, as well as the most famous and the most beautiful, is unquestionably Etienne Chevalier's "Book of Hours", the "Quarante Fouquet", which is one of the treasures of Chantilly. Of the forty-four pages of the "Book of Hours" hitherto recovered, twenty-five (following the order of the Breviary) tell the story of the Gospel and of the life of the Blessed Virgin, fourteen are scenes from the lives of the saints; one, dealing with the story of Job, is an Old-Testament scene; and one, "The Last Judgment", is from the Apocalypse. The frontispiece, two pages reproducing the diptych of Melun, and the page of the Office for the Dead, are consecrated to the memory of Etienne Chevalier. We are impressed immediately with the exquisite clearness, animation and life. Italian mannerisms abound in the details; the artist speaks with a more flowery tongue than in his portraits. This work is one of joy in which the imagination delights in lovely caprices. Here are chubby-faced little angels, flowing draperies and garments, Burgundian luxuriance with the large folds of its draperies; to one side are the playing children (putti), musicians of Prato and Pistoia, pilastered niches, classic cornices, the Corinthian acanthus, and architectural foliage like the Florentine cypress and yew. His style is extremely composite. Nowhere else are its elements so deftly combined. There is gold everywhere, golden skies and golden hatching, an enveloping tissue delicately gilt. Since his time, no one has been able to master the process, which is in fact only the radiant atmosphere of the artist's ideas and the colour of his spirit.

The fundamental note is wonderfully sustained despite the appearance of playful improvisation. Although the artist delights in allowing free play to pleasant reminiscences, and has made use of his sketches of travel as adornments for his ideas, the basis of all is an ardent love of reality, and he glances at them only to refresh his memory. As a story-teller and dramatist he has the regard for the letter and the text which was to become the predominant trait of the great French historical painters, Poussin and Delacroix. But above all he feels the craving for truth, which underneath the embellishments of his style constitutes the real merit of his miniatures and his portraits. Fouquet is a "naturalist" from conviction. This he is after his own fashion, but as truly as Van Eyck or Filippo Lippi. He resembles them in being of their time, but he differs from them inasmuch as with him imitation never prevails over his passionate worship of nature.

This naturalism was so strong that Fouquet lacked the power to conceive what he had not seen. He did not dispense with models and all his works were not only observed but posed. He fails completely in ideal scenes and those of intense expression (e.g. Calvary) for which he could have no model. If his "Last Judgment" is a thrilling picture, it is because the memory of the glass-worker came to the aid of the painter, for the artist beheld heaven as the rose window of a cathedral (Dante, Parad., xxxi). In "The Martyrdom of St. Apollonia" he depicts quite clearly a scene from a popular mystery; it is, indeed, the most exact document we possess as to the scenic effects in the mysteries of the Middle Ages (Emil Mâle, "Le renouvellement de l'art par les mystères" in "Gazette des Beaux-Arts", 1904, I, 89). This influence of the theatre is seen throughout the "Book of Hours", in the costumes, the decoration, and local colour, the capricious and grotesque appearance of which proceeds directly from the store of dramatic accessories and the tinsel adornments of the actors. It was thus that the age of Fouquet conceived historical painting. Finally another custom of Fouquet was to give as background to the scenes taken from the Bible or the Gospel, instead of Palestine of which he knew nothing, France or Touraine which he knew so well. Thus the representation of "Job" has as a decorative background the castle keep of Vincennes. The "Paschal Supper" takes place in an inn, and through the open door is seen the roof of Notre-dame de Paris. "Calvary" is placed on the hill of Montrouge. The excess of naïveté must not lead us to think that Fouquet knew not what he did. The anachronism of the "Primitives" is a conscious and voluntary system. Fouquet was not at all naïf, as has been too frequently asserted, when in the scene of the Epiphany he substituted for one of the Magi of history the portrait of King Charles VII, in a mantle ornamented with fleurs-de-lis, surrounded by his guards and rendering homage to the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps this was a way of bringing home the teaching of the Gospel and of expressing its eternal truths and undying realities rather than the historical incident. Above all it was the parti pris of an age which, weary of abstractions and symbols, underwent a passionate reaction towards the youthful, and towards life. No contemporary expressed life better than Fouquet. He loved it in all its forms, in art, whether Italian, Flemish, Gothic, or Renaissance, in the theatre as well as in nature. He loved beautiful horses, beautiful arms, rich costumes, gay colours, beautiful music (his works are full of concerts). He loved the elegance of the new architecture, and he loved also the tapering spires, the cathedral windows, and the pointed towers on the pepper-box roofs. A thousand details of the life of his times would have been lost except for him, e.g., a row of quays on the banks of the Seine at the extremity of the city, a view of Paris from Montmartre or the Pré aux Clercs, the performance of a mystery, a funeral scene, the interior of the ancient basilica of St. Peter. He is the best witness of his time; he is in turn good-natured, bantering, tender, and emotional. Neither a dreamer nor a mystic, he is full of faith and purity. Nothing could be more chaste than his work, which appeals at once to the learned and to the masses. The mind of this humble miniaturist was one of the best informed and most well-ordered of his time. Above all he had also a creative side, for he is one of the great landscape painters of the world. No one has depicted as well as he the charming countrysides of France. Nothing could be more sweetly rustic than his "Sainte Marguerite". In this Fouquet immediately foreshadows Corot. His "Mount of Olives" and his "Nativity" are two of the most beautiful nocturnal scenes ever painted. The Alps in his "Grandes Chroniques" are perhaps the earliest example of mountain landscape.

Fouquet's influence has been considerable. He had numerous pupils, the best-known of whom are his two sons (one of them has a "Calvary" in the church of Loches) and Jean Colombe, the brother of the sculptor, while the greatest was Jehan Bourdichon, who in 1507 painted the famous "Hours" of Anne of Brittany. But none of these artists comes near to the master in merit. Fouquet remains the sole type of a French Renaissance which died out with his pupils. After 1500 Italy took a decided lead over the rest of Europe, and France was unable to contest her prestige. For more than two centuries she lost even the memory of her first original master. It is only in modern times that he has been drawn from obscurity and restored to his rank among the most charming men of genius of the early Renaissance.

CURMER, Oeuvres de Jean Fouquet (Paris, 1865) (chromos); BOUCHOT, Jean Fouquet in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1890), II, 273; LEPRIEUR, Jean Fouquet in Revue de l'Art (1897), I, 25; LAFENESTRE, Jean Fouquet in Revue des Deux Mondes (15 Jan., 1902); FRIEDLÄNDER, Die Votiftafel des Etienne Chevalier von Fouquet in Jahrbücher of the Museum of Berlin (1897), 206; GRUYER, Les Quarante Fouquet (of Chantilly), (Paris, 1900); MICHEL, Les Miniatures de Fouquet à Chantilly in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (1897), I, 214; DURRIEU, L'Exposition des Primitifs français in Revue de l'Art (1904), I, 82; FRY in Burlington Magazine (1904), I, 279; BOUCHOT, DELISLE, etc., Exposition des Primitifs français au Louvre (Paris, 1904); DURRIEU, Le Livre des Antiquités Judaïques (Paris, 1908).

LOUIS GILLET

Four Crowned Martyrs

The old guidebooks to the tombs of the Roman martyrs make mention, in connection with the catacomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus on the Via Labicana, of the Four Crowned Martyrs (Quatuor Coronati), at whose grave the pilgrims were wont to worship (De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, I, 178-79). One of these itineraries, the "Epitome libri de locis sanctorum martyrum", adds the names of the four martyrs (in reality five): "IV Coronati, id est Claudius, Nicostratus, Simpronianus, Castorius, Simplicitus". These are the names of five martyrs, sculptors in the quarries of Pannonia (now a part of Austria-Hungary, south-west of the Danube), who gave up their lives for their Faith in the reign of Diocletian. The Acts of these martyrs, written by a revenue officer named Porphyrius probably in the fourth century, relates of the five sculptors that, although they raised no objections to executing such profane images as Victoria, Cupid, and the Chariot of the Sun, they refused to make a statue of Æsculapius for a heathen temple. For this they were condemned to death as Christians. They were put into leaden caskets and drowned in the River Save. This happened towards the end of 305. The foregoing account of the martyrdom of the five sculptors of Pannonia is substantially authentic; but later on a legend sprang up at Rome concerning the Quatuor Coronati, according to which four Christian soldiers (cornicularii) suffered martyrdom at Rome during the reign of Diocletian, two years after the death of the five sculptors. Their offence consisted in refusing to offer sacrifice to the image of Æsculapius. The bodies of the martyrs were interred at St. Sebastian and Pope Melchiades at the third milestone on the Via Labicana, in a sandpit where rested the remains of others who had perished for the Faith. Since the names of the four martyred soldiers could not be authentically established, Pope Melchiades commanded that, the date of their death (8 November) being the same as that of the Pannonian sculptors, their anniversary should be celebrated on that day, under the names of Sts. Claudius, Nicostratus, Symphorianus, Castor, and Simplicius. This report has no historic foundation. It is merely a tentative explanation of the name Quatuor Coronati, a name given to a group of really authenticated martyrs who were buried and venerated in the catatomb of Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, the real origin of which, however, is not known. They were classed with the five martyrs of Pannonia in a purely external relationship. Numerous manuscripts on the legend as well as the Roman Martyrology give the names of the Four Crowned Martyrs, supposed to have been revealed at a later date, as Secundus, Severianus, Carpoforus, and Victorius. But these four martyrs were not buried in Rome, but in the catacomb of Albano; their feast was celebrated on 7 August, under which date it is cited in the Roman Calender of Feasts of 354. These martyrs of Albano have no connection with the Roman martyrs described above. Of the four Crowned Martyrs we know only that they suffered death for the Faith and the place where they were buried. They evidently were held in great veneration at Rome, since in the fourth and fifth century a basilica was erected and dedicated in the Caelian Hill, probably in the neibourhood of spot where tradition located their execution. This became one of the titular churches of Rome, was restored several times and still stands. It is first mentioned among the signatures of a Roman council in 595. Pope Leo IV ordered the relics removed, about 850, from the Via Labicana to the church dedicated to their memory, together with the relics of the five Pannonian martyrs, which had been brought to Rome at some period now unknown. Both group of maryrs are commemorated on 8 November.

J. P. KIRSCH

Annals of the Four Masters

The most extensive of all the compilations of the ancient annals of Ireland. They commence, nominally at least, at A.M. 2242 and are continued down to A.D. 1616. The entries which are bare and meagre during the earlier period grow less so as the "Annals" progress, and towards the end they become in parts almost like a history in their diffuseness. The principal compiler of these "Annals" was Michael O'Clery, a native of Donegal, who had been by profession a trained antiquary and poet, but who afterwards joined the Franciscan Order, and went to their Irish house in Louvain. Thence he was sent back to Ireland by his famous compatriot, Father John Colgan, to collect the lives of Irish saints. Many of these lives which he copied upon that visit, out of the old vellum books of Ireland, are now in the Burgundian Library at Brussels. Afterwards, under the patronage of Fergal O'Gara, Lord of Moy Gara and Coolavin, in the County Sligo, he conceived the pious idea of collecting and redacting all the ancient vellum books of annals which he could find throughout Ireland, and of combining them into one continuous whole. "I thought", says O'Clery, in his dedication to O'Gara, "that I could get the assistance of the chroniclers for whom I had most esteem, in writing a book of annals in which these matters might be put on record, for that should the writing of them be neglected at present, they would not again be found to be put on record even to the end of the world. All the best and most copious books of annals that I could find throughout all Ireland were collected by me--though it was difficult for me to collect them--into one place to write this book." It was to the secluded convent of Donegal that the learned friar retired while engaged upon this work which was commenced by himself and his fellow labourers on the 22nd of January, 1632, and concluded on the 10th of August, 1636. His forebodings as to the fate of the material that he worked from were prophetic. Scarcely one of the ancient books which he brought together with such pains has survived to the present day--they probably perished in the cataclysm of the Cromwellian and Williamite wars.

It was Father Colgan, the celebrated author of the "Trias Thaumaturga" and the "Acta sanctorum Hiberniae", who, in the preface to this latter work, first conferred the title by which they are now always known, "The Annals of the Four Masters", upon these annals of O'Clery. "As in the three works before mentioned", writes Colgan, "so in this fourth one, three (helpers of O'Clery) are eminently to be praised, namely Farfassa O'Mulconry, Peregrine O'Clery, and Peregrine O'Duignan, men of consummate learning in the antiquities of their country, and to these were subsequently added the co-operation of other distinguished antiquarians, as Maurice O'Mulconry who for one month and Conary O'Clery who for many months laboured in its promotion. But since those 'Annals' which we shall very frequently have occasion to quote, have been collected and compiled by the assistance and separate study of so many authors, neither the desire of brevity would permit us always to quote them individually, nor would justice permit us to attribute the labour of many to one, hence it sometimes seemed best to call them the 'Annals of Donegal', for in our convent of Donegal they were commenced and concluded. But afterwards, for other reasons, chiefly for the sake of the compilers themselves, who were four most learned masters in antiquarian lore, we have been led to call them the 'Annals of the Four Masters'."

These "Annals", written in a very archaic language, difficult to be understood, even then, except by the learned, give us the reigns, deaths, genealogies, etc., not only of the high-kings of Ireland, but also of the provincial kings, chiefs, and heads of distinguished families, men of science, historians, poets, etc., with their respective dates given as accurately as the Masters are able to give them. They record the demise and succession of saints, abbots, bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries. They tell of the foundation and occasionally the overthrow of countless churches, castles, abbeys, convents, and religious institutions. They give meagre details of battles, murders, tribal wars, wars with the foreigners, battles with Norsemen, Normans, and English, and political changes. Sometimes they quote ancient verses in corroboration of the facts they mention, but no such verses are quoted prior to the third century. We have here the condensed pith and substance of the old vellum books of Ireland which were then in existence, but most of which, as the Four Masters foresaw, have long since perished. Their facts and dates are not their own facts and dates. From confused masses of very ancient matter, they, with labour and much sifting, drew forth their dates, and as far as possible synchronized their facts. It is not too much to say that there is no event in the whole of Irish history from the birth of Christ down to the beginning of the seventeenth century that the first enquiry of the student about it must not be: "What do the Four Masters say of this?"

These "Annals" have been published, at least in part, three times, but are now always read in the edition of the great Irish scholar, John O'Donovan. In this splendid work the Irish text is given with a translation into English and a mass of the most valuable notes, topographical, genealogical, and historical, the whole contained in seven great quarto volumes. So long as Irish history exists the "Annals of the Four Masters" will be read in O'Donovan's translation, and the name of O'Donovan be inseparably connected with that of the O'Clerys.

O'DONOVAN, ed. Annala Rioghachta Eireann, Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland, by the Four Masters, from the earliest period to the year 1616 (Dublin, 1851); CONNELLAN, The Annals of Ireland translated from the original Irish of the Four Masters, with annotations by Philip MacDermott, Esq., M.D., and the translator (Dublin, 1846). Connellan's translation is only from the year 1171 to the end and he does not publish the Irish text. O'Conor ed., Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptores Tom. III, complectens Annales IV Magistrorum ex ipso O'Clerii autographo in Bibliotheca Stowense (Buckingham, 1826). The Rev. Charles O'Conor publishes the Annals only up to the year 1171. 0'CURRY, Lectures on the MS. materials of Ancient Irish history, 142-161, appendix 543-548; HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (London, 1899), 573-580; IDEM, Story of Early Irish Literature, 136-142; JOYCE, Social History of Ancient Ireland, I, 524-526; GILBERT, National MSS. of Ireland (London, 1884), 311-313; MOORE in Dict. Nat. Biog. s. v. O'Clery.

DOUGLAS HYDE

John Fowler

Scholar and printer, b. at Bristol, England, 1537; d. at Namur, Flanders, 13 Feb., 1578-9. He studied at Winchester School from 1551 to 1553, when he proceeded to New College, Oxford where he remained till 1559. He became B.A. 23 Feb., 1556-7 and M.A. in 1560, though Antony a Wood adds that he did not complete his degree by standing in comitia. On Elizaheth's accession he was one of the fifteen Fellows of New College who left of their own accord or were ejected rather than take the Oath of Supremacy (Rashdall, History of New college, 114). This disposes of the calumny circulated by Acworth in his answer to Sander, called "De visibili Romanarchia", to the effect that Fowler took the oath to enable him to retain the living of Wonston in Hampshire. There is, indeed, no trace of any desire on his part to receive Holy orders and he subsequently married Alice Harris, daughter of Sir Thomas More's secretary. On leaving Oxford he withdrew to Louvain, where like other scholars of his time he turned his attention to the craft of printing. His intellectual attainments were such as to enable him to take high rank among the scholar-printers of that age. Thus Antony a Wood says of him: "He was well skilled in the Greek and Latin tongues, a tolerable poet and orator, and a theologian not to be contemned. So learned he was also in criticisms and other polite learning, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He did diligently peruse the Theological Summa of St. Thomas of Aquin, and with a most excellent method did reduce them into a Compendium." To have a printing press abroad in the hands of a competent English printer was a great gain to the Catholic cause, and Fowler devoted the rest of his life to this work, winning from Cardinal Allen the praise of being catholicissimus et doctissimus librorum impressor. The English Government kept an eye on his work, as we learn from the state papers (Domestic, Eliz. 1566-1579), where we read the evidence of one Henry Simpson at York in 1571, to the effect that Fowler printed all the English books at Louvain and that Dr. Harding's Welsh servant, William Smith, used to bring the works to the press. He seems to have had a press at Antwerp as well as at Louvain, for his Antwerp books range from 1565 to 1575, whereas his Louvain books are dated 1566, 1567 and 1568; while one of his publications, Gregory Martin's "Treatise of Schism" bears the impress, Douay, 1578. More thorough bibliographical research than has yet been made into the output of his presses will probably throw new light upon his activity as a printer. The original works or translations for which he was personally responsible are: "An Oration against the unlawful Insurrections of the Protestants of our time under pretence to reforme Religion" (Antwerp, 1566), translated from the Latin of Peter Frarinus, which provoked a reply from Fulke; "Ex universâ summâ Sacrae Theologiae Doctori os S. Thomae Aquinatis desumptae conclusiones" (Louvain, 1570); "M. Maruli dictorum factorumque memorabilium libri VI" (Antwerp, 1577); "Additiones in Chronica Genebrandi" (1578); "A Psalter for Catholics", a controversial work answered by Sampson; epigrams and verses. The translation of the "Epistle of Orosius" (Antwerp, 1565), ascribed to him by Wood and Pitts, was really made by Richard Shacklock. Pitts also states that he wrote in English a work "Ad Ducissam Feriae confessionis forma", Fowler also edited Sir Thomas More's "Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation" (Antwerp, 1573).

EDWIN BURTON

Fractio Panis

(BREAKING OF BREAD.)

The name given to a fresco in the so-called "Capella Greca" in the catacomb of St. Priscilla situated on the Via Salaria Nova. The fresco, which with the whole of the decorations of the chapel dates from the first half of the second century, is of the highest liturgical and theological importance. The painting is found upon the face of the arch immediately over the altar tomb, upon which beyond all reasonable doubt the Holy Sacrifice was offered. By a providential accident this particular fresco, having been covered by a thick crust of stalactites, escaped the notice of the early explorers of the catacombs, who, by their eagerness and ignorance combined, often did much irreparable harm. In the year 1893, Mgr. Joseph Wilpert, the most distinguished of a band of young scholars who looked upon the great archaeologist De Rossi (q.v.) as their master, arrived at the conclusion that the roof and arches of this chapel were decorated with frescoes. Chemical reagents were used to remove the crust which covered the surface, and by the patient care of Mgr. Wilpert this delicate operation was attended with complete success. The most important fresco thus recovered was that already referred to over the altar tomb. The scene represented is a picture of seven persons at table, six men and a woman. It seems clear that six of these are reclining as the ancients reclined at their meals. But the seventh personage, a bearded and impressive figure, sits somewhat apart at the extremity of the table in an attitude which is highly significant. His head is thrown back, he has a small loaf or cake in his hands, and his arms stretched out in front of him show that he is breaking it. Upon the table immediately before him is a two-handled cup. Further along the table there are two large plates, one containing two fishes, the other five loaves. At each extremity of the picture upon either side we notice baskets filled with loaves--four baskets at one end, three at the other.

As a very little reflection will suffice to prove, no doubt can be felt as to the significance of the scene. It depicts beyond question that striking Eucharistic act, "the breaking of the bread" (klasis tou artou -- fractio panis), which seems to have so much impressed our Lord's immediate disciples. The phrase itself at once transports us back to the very beginnings of Christianity. No wonder that De Rossi, whose last years were gladdened by this find, described it as "the pearl of Catacomb discoveries". To point out briefly how constantly this phrase "fractio panis" recurs in early Christian literature, we may note that not only is the "blessing and breaking" of the bread mentioned in each of the four accounts of the Last Supper, but repeatedly also in the other Apostolic writings. For example in 1 Cor, x 16, "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" So again in Acts, ii, 42, "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (cf. Acts, ii, 46). And particularly Acts, xx, 7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread", where this practice is closely associated with the observance of Sunday. (Cf. also the diciples at Emmaus on Easter day--Luke, xxiv, 30, 35, and Acts, xxvii, 35). Similar prominence is given to this conception in other sub-Apostolic writings, notably in the Didache (q.v.) or "Teaching of the Apostles" (xiv, I), where it is associated with the observance of the Sunday as well as with the explicit mention of Sacrifice and with confession. "And on the Lord's day come together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." Further, in ch. xi of the same early treatise the consecrated Host is clearly designated by the term klasma, i.e. "broken bread". Nothing then could be more natural than that, in the earliest form of the liturgy, the breaking of the bread should have been regarded as the climax of the ritual employed and should have been for the early Christians what the Elevation in the Mass is nowadays for us. Moreover this Eucharistic significance of the picture is borne out by all the accessories. The loaves and the fishes upon the table point directly to the miraculous multiplication twice performed by Christ. The association of this miracle with the Blessed Eucharist is familiar, not only in other archaeological monuments, but also in early Christian literature. See for example Origen, "In Matt.", x, 25 (P.G. XIII, 902), and Ambrose, "De Virgin.", I, 3 (P.L., XVI, 219). Upon the symbolic significance of the fish and the anagram ichthys, it cannot be necessary to insist. Both the inscription of Abercius (q.v.) of the close of the second century and that of Autun a little later, as well as the large number of allusions in early Christian literature, make it clear that our Saviour Jesus Christ was indicated by this symbol (see e.g. Mowat in the "Atti del Congresso Internnaz. d'Archeol. Crist.", Rome, 1902, pp. 2-4) Moreover, the Abercius inscription clearly conveys that this "great fish" was to be the permanent food of the soul. We may also note that the one female fixture among the guests depicted in the Fractio Panis fresco is veiled which is not the case with the female figures represented in those other banqueting scenes found in the catacombs and usually interpreted as symbolic of the joys of heaven. The fresco of which we speak is not, as will be readily understood, either entirely realistic or entirely symbolical. That the president (proestos) of the synaxis (assembly) should break the bread seated, is probably not to be understood as implying that the bishops in the primitive church were in fact seated when they offered the liturgy any more than the attitude of the guests implies that the early Christians reclined on couches when they assisted at the Holy Sacrifice. On the other hand, the action of the breaking of the bread is clearly realistic. A further indication of the Eucharistic significance of the freseo here under discussion is afforded by the fact that in the fresco next to it in the same chamber is depicted the sacrifice of Abraham. On the other side is a representation of Daniel in the lions' den, to which Mgr. Wilpert also attaches a Eucharistic significance on account of the supernatural feeding of Daniel through the intervention of the prophet Habacuc (Dan., xiv, 36).

WILPERT, in 1895, published a monograph giving a full account of this discovery under the title Fractio Panis, die alteste Darstellung der eucharistischen Opfers (Freiburz in Br.) This was translated into French the next year, it contains a collection of very carefully executed photogravures of the frescoes in the Capella Greca, but the dimness of the tones in the original fresco makes it impossible to distinguish the details clearly in any photographic copy. For this reason the coloured reproduction included by Mgr. Wilpert in his later work Die Malereien der Katakombem Roms, two folio volumes (Freiburg, 1903), also published at Rome in Italian, is much to be preferred. The Fractio Panis is shown upon plate xv, vol. I. Compare also MARUCCI elements d'Archeotogie Chretienne (Paris, 1899-1902), I, pp. 284-299: LECLERCQ in Dict. d' Archeologie, I, 3159-3162.

HERBERT THURSTON

France

The fifth in size (usually reckoned the fourth) of the great divisions of Europe.

DESCRIPTIVE GEOGRAPHY

The area of France is 207,107 square miles; it has a coastline 1560 miles and a land frontier 1525 miles in length. In shape it resembles a hexagon of which the sides are: (1) From Dunkirk to Point St-Matthieu (sands and dunes from Dunkirk to the mouth of the Somme; cliffs, called falaises, extending from the Somme to the Orne, except where their wall is broken by the estuary of the Seine; granite boulders intersected by deep inlets from the Orne to Point St-Matthieu. (2) From Point St-Matthieu to the mouth of the Bidassoa (alternate granite cliffs and river inlets as far as the River Loire; sandy stretches and arid moors from the Loire to the Garonne; sands, lagoons, and dunes from the Garonne to the Pyrenees). (3) From the Bidassoa to Point Cerbére (a formation known as Pyrenean chalk). (4) From Point Cerbére to the mouth of the Roya (a steep, rocky frontier from the Pyrenees to the Tech; sands and lagoons between the Tech and the Rhone, and an unbroken wall of pointed rocks stretching from the Rhone to the Roya). (5) From the Roya to Mount Donon (running along the Maritime, the Cottain, and the Graian Alps, as well as the mountains of Jura and the Vosges). (6) From Mount Donon to Dunkirk (an artificial frontier differentiated by few marked physical peculiarities).

France is the only country in Europe having a coast line both on the Atlantic and on the Mediterranean; moreover, the passes of Belfort. Côte d'Or and Naurouse open up ready channels of communication between the Rhine, the English Channel, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Furthermore, it is noteworthy, that wherever the French frontier is defended by lofty mountains (as, for instance, the Alps, the Pyrenees), the border people are akin to the French either in race, speech, or customs (the Latin races), while on the other hand, the Teutonic races, differing so widely from the French in ideas and sentiment, are physically divided from them only by the low-lying hills and plains of the North-East. Hence it follows that France has always lent itself with peculiar facility to the spread of any great intellectual movement, coming from the shores of the Mediterranean, as was the case with Christianity. France was the natural high road between Italy and England, between Germany and the Iberian peninsula. On French soil, the races of the North mingled with those of the South; and the very geographical configuration of the country accounts in a certain sense for the instinct of expansion, the gift of assimilation and of diffusion, thanks to which France has been able to play the part of general distributor of ideas. In fact, two widely different worlds meet in France. A journey from north to south leads through three distinct zones: the grain country reaching from the northern coast to a line drawn from Mézières to Nantes; the vine country and the region of berries, southward from this to the latitude of Grenoble and Perpignan; the land of olive-garths and orange groves, extending to the southern boundary of the country. Its climate ranges from the foggy promontories of Brittany to the sunny shores of Provence; from the even temperature of the Atlantic to the sudden changes which are characteristic of the Mediterranean. Its people vary from the fair-haired races of Flanders and Lorraine, with a mixture of German blood in their veins, to the olive-skinned dwellers of the south, who are essentially Latin and Mediterranean in their extraction. Again Nature has formed, in the physiography of this country, a multitude of regions, each with its own characteristics -- its own personality, so to speak -- which, in former times, popular instinct called separate countries. The tendency to abstraction, however, which carried away the leaders of the Revolution, is responsible for the present purely arbitrary divisions of the soil, known as "departments". Contemporary geography is glad to avail itself of the old names and the old divisions into "countries" and "provinces" which more nearly correspond to the geographical formations as well as the natural peculiarities of the various regions. "Massif Central" (the Central Plateau), a rugged land inhabited by a stubborn race that is often glad to leave its fastness, and those lands of comfort that lie along the great Northern Plain, the valley of the Loire, and the fertile basin in which Paris stands. But in spite of this variety, France is a unit. These regions, so unlike and so diversified, balance and complete each other like the limbs of a living body. As Michelet puts it, "France is a person."

STATISTICS

In 1901, France had 31,031,000 inhabitants. The census no longer inquires as to the religion of French citizens, and it is only by way of approximation that we can compute the number of Catholics at 38 millions; Protestants, 600,000; Jews 68,000. The population of the French colonies amounts to 47,680,000 inhabitants, and in consequence France stands second to England as a colonizing power; but the difference between them is very great, the colonies of England having more than 356 millions of inhabitants.

There are two points to be noted in the study of French statistics. The annual mean excess of births over deaths for each 10,000 inhabitants during the period 1901-1905 in France was 18, while in Italy it was 106, in Austria 113, in England 121, in Germany 149, in Belgium 155. In 1907, the deaths were more numerous than the births, the number of deaths being 70,455, while that of births was only 50,535 -- an excess of 19,920 deaths -- and this is notwithstanding the fact that in 1907 there were nearly 45,000 more marriages than in 1890. Official investigations attributed this phenomenon to sterile marriages. In 1907, in only 29 of 86 departments, the number of births exceeded the number of deaths. It may perhaps be legitimately inferred that the sterility of marriages coincides with the decay of religious belief. Again it is important to note the increase in population of the larger cities between the years 1789 and 1901: Marseilles, from 106,000 to 491,000; Lyons, from 139,000 to 459,000; Bordeaux, from 83,000 to 256,000; Lille, from 13,000 to 210,000; Toulouse, from 55,000 to 149,000; Saint-Etienne, from 9000 to 146,000. Paris, which in 1817 had 714,000 inhabitants, had 2,714,000 in 1901; Havre and Roubaix, which in 1821 had 17,000 and 9000 respectively, now have 130,000 and 142,000. In these great increases the multiplication of parishes has not always been proportionate to the increase in the population, and this is one of the causes of the indifference into which so many of the working people have fallen. In should be remembered that in former days nine-tenths of the people in France lived in the country; that while 556 of every 1000 Frenchmen lived by agriculture in 1856, that number had fallen to 419 in 1891. The emigrants from the country hurried into the industrial towns, many of which multiplied their population by fifteen, and there, accustomed as they had been to the village bell, they found no church in the neighbourhood, and after a few brief generations the once faithful family from the country developed the faithless dweller in the town.

HISTORY TO THE THIRD REPUBLIC

The treaty of Verdun (843) definitely established the partition of Charlemagne's empire into three independent kingdoms, and one of these was France. A great churchman, Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (806-82), was the deviser of the new arrangement. He strongly supported the kingship of Charles the Bald, under whose scepter he would have placed Lorraine also. To Hincmar, the dream of a united Christendom did not appear under the guise of an empire, however ideal, but under the concrete form of a number of unit States, each being a member of one mighty body, the great Republic of Christendom. He would replace the empire by a Europe of which France was one member. Under Charles the Fat (880-88) it looked for a moment as though Charlemagne's empire was about to come to life again; but the illusion was temporary, and in its stead were quickly formed seven kingdoms: France, Navarre, Provence, Burgundy beyond the Jura, Lorraine, Germany, and Italy. Feudalism was the seething-pot, and the imperial edifice was crumbling to dust. Towards the close of the tenth century, in the Frankish kingdom alone, twenty-nine provinces or fragments of provinces, under the sway of dukes, counts, or viscounts, constituted veritable sovereignties, and at the end of the eleventh century there were as many as fifty-five of these minor states, of greater or lesser importance. As early as the tenth century one of the feudal families had begun to take the lead, that of the Dukes of Francia, descendants of Robert the Strong, and lords of all the country between the Seine and the Loire. >From 887 to 987 they successfully defended French soil against the invading Northmen, and the Eudes, or Odo, Duke of Francia (887-98), Robert his brother (922-23), and Raoul, or Rudolph, Robert's son-in-law (923-36), occupied the throne for a brief interval. The weakness of the later Carlovingian kings was evident to all, and in 987, on the death of Louis V, Adalberon, Archbishop of Reims, at a meeting of the chief men held at Senlis, contrasted the incapacity of the Carlovingian Charles of Lorraine, the heir to the throne, with the merits of Hugh, Duke of Francia. Gerbert, who afterwards became Sylvester II, adviser and secretary to Adalberon, and Arnoul, Bishop of Orléans, also spoke in support of Hugh, with the result that he was proclaimed king. Thus the Capetian dynasty had its rise in the person of Hugh Capet. It was the work of the Church, brought to pass by the influence of the See of Reims, renowned throughout France since the episcopate of Hincmar, renowned since the days of Clovis for the privilege of anointing the Frankish kings conferred on its titular, and renowned so opportunely at this time for the learning of its episcopal school presided over by Gerbert himself.

The Church, which had set up the new dynasty, exercised a very salutary influence over French social life. That the origin and growth of the "Chansons de geste", i.e., of early epic literature, are closely bound up with the famous pilgrim shrines, whither the piety of the people resorted, has been recently proved by the literary efforts of M. Bédier. And military courage and physical heroism were schooled and blessed by the Church, which in the early part of the eleventh century transformed chivalry from a lay institution of German origin into a religious one, by placing among its liturgical rites the ceremony of knighthood, in which the candidate promised to defend truth, justice, and the oppressed. The Congregation of Cluny, founded in 910, which made rapid progress in the eleventh century, prepared France to play an important part in the reformation of the Church undertaken in the second half of the eleventh century by a monk of Cluny, Gregory VII, and gave the Church two other popes after him, Urban II and Pascal II. It was a Frenchman, Urban II, who at the Council of Claremont (1095), started the glorious movement of the Crusades, a war taken up by Christendom when France had led the way.

The reign of Louis VI (1108-37) is of note in the history of the Church, and in that of France; in the one because the solemn adhesion of Louis VI to Innocent II assured the unity of the Church, which at the time was seriously menaced by the Antipope Antecletus; in the other because for the first timer Capetian kings took a stand as champions of law and order against the feudal system and as the protectors of public rights. A churchman, Suger, abbot of St-Denis, a friend of Louis VI and minister of Louis VII (1137-80), developed and realized this ideal of kingly duty. Louis VI, seconded by Suger, and counting on the support of the towns -- the "communes" they were called when they had obliged the feudal lords to grant them charters of freedom -- fulfilled to the letter the rôle of prince as it was conceived by the theology of the Middle Ages. "Kings have long arms", wrote Suger, "and it is their duty to repress with all their might, and by right of their office, the daring of those who rend the State by endless war, who rejoice in pillage, and who destroy homesteads and churches." Another French Churchman, St. Bernard, won Louis VII for the Crusades; and it was not his fault that Palestine, where the first crusade had set up a Latin kingdom, did not remain a French colony in the service of the Church. The divorce of Louis VII and Eleanor of Acquitain (1152) marred the ascendancy of French influence by paving the way for the growth of Anglo-Normal pretensions on the soil of France from the Channel to the Pyrenees. Soon, however, by virtue of feudal laws, the French king, Philip Augustus (1180-1223), proclaimed himself suzerain over Richard Coeur de Lion and John Lackland, and the victory of Bouvines which he gained over the Emperor Otto IV, backed by a coalition of feudal nobles (1214), was the first even in French history which called forth a movement of national solidarity around a French king. The war against the Albigensians under Louis VIII (1223-26) brought in its train the establishment of the influence and authority of the French monarchy in the south of France.

St. Louis IX (1226-1270), "ruisselant de piété, et enflammé de charité", as a contemporary describes him, made kings so beloved that from that time dates that royal cult, so to speak, which was one of the moral forces in olden France, and which existed in no other country of Europe to the same degree. Piety had been for the kings of France, set on their thrones, set on their thrones by the Church of God, as it were a duty belonging to their charge or office; but in the piety of St. Louis there was a note all his own, the note of sanctity. With him ended the Crusades, but not their spirit. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, project after project attempting to set on foot a crusade was made, and we refer to them merely to point out that the spirit of a militant apostolate continued to ferment in the soul of France. The project of Charles Valois (1308-09), the French expedition under Peter I of Cyprus against Alexandria and the Armenian coasts (1365-1367), sung of by the French trouvère, Guillaume Machault, the crusade of John of Nevers, which ended in the bloody battle of Nicopolis (1396) -- in all these enterprises, the spirit of St. Louis lived, just as in the heart of the Christians of the east, whom France was thus trying to protect, there has survived a lasting gratitude toward the nation of St. Louis. If the feeble nation of the Marionites cries out today to France for help, it is because of a letter written by St. Louis to the nation of St. Maroun in May, 1250. In the days of St. Louis the influence of the French epic literature in Europe was supreme. Brunetto Latini, as early as the middle of the thirteenth century wrote that, "of all speech [parlures] that of the French was the most charming, and the most in favour with everyone." French held sway in England until the middle of the fourteenth century; it was fluently spoken at the Court of Constantinople at the time of the Fourth Crusade; and in Greece in the dukedoms, principalities and baronies found there by the House of Burgundy and Champagne. And it was in French that Rusticiano of Pisa, about 1300, wrote down from Marco Polo's lips the story of his wonderful travels. The University of Paris, founded by favour of Innocent III between 1280 and 1213, was saved from a spirit of exclusiveness by the happy intervention of Alexander IV, who obliged it to open its chairs to the mendicant friars. Among its professors were Duns Scotus; the Italians, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure; Albert the Great, a German; Alexander of Hales, an Englishman. Among its pupils it counted Roger Bacon, Dante, Raimundus Lullus, Popes Gregory IX, Urban IV, Clement IV, and Boniface VIII.

France was also the birthplace of Gothic art, which was carried by French architects into Germany. The method employed in the building of many Gothic cathedrals -- i.e., by the actual assistance of the faithful -- bears witness to the fact that at this period the lives of the French people were deeply penetrated with faith. An architectural wonder such as the cathedral of Chartres was in reality the work of popular art born of the faith of the people who worshipped there.

Under Philip IV, the Fair (1285-1314), the royal house of France became very powerful. By means of alliances he extended his prestige as far as the Orient. His brother Charles of Valois married Catherine de Courtney, an heiress of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The Kings of England and Minorca were his vassals, the King of Scotland his ally, the Kings of Naples and Hungary connections by marriage. He aimed at a sort of supremacy over the body politic of Europe. Pierre Dubois, his jurisconsult, dreamed that the pope would hand over all his domains to Philip and receive in exchange an annual income, while Philip would thus have the spiritual head of Christendom under his influence. Philip IV laboured to increase the royal prerogative and thereby the national unity of France. By sending magistrates in feudal territories, by defining certain cases (cas royaux) as reserved to the king's competency, he dealt a heavy blow to the feudalism of the Middle Ages. But on the other hand, under his rule many anti-Christian maxims began to creep into law and politics. Roman law was slowly re-introduced into social organization, and gradually the idea of a united Christendom disappeared from the national policy. Philip the Fair, pretending to rule by Divine right, gave it to be understood that he rendered an account of his kingship to no on under heaven. He denied the pope's right to represent, as the papacy had always done in the past, the claims of morality and justice where kings were concerned. Hence arose in 1294-1303, his struggle with Pope Boniface VIII, but in that struggle he was cunning enough to secure the support of the States-General, which represented public opinion in France. In later times, after centuries of monarchical government, this same public opinion rose against the abuse of power committed by its kings in the name of their pretended divine right, and thus made an implicit amende honorable to what the Church had taught concerning the origin, the limits, and the responsibility of all power, which had been forgotten or misinterpreted by the lawyers of Philip IV when they set up their pagan State as the absolute source of power. The election of Pope Clement V (1305) under Philip's influence, the removal of the papacy to Avignon, the nomination of seven French popes in succession, weakened the influence of the papacy in Christendom, though it has recently come to light that the Avignon popes did not always allow the independence of the Holy See to waver or disappear in the game of politics. Philip IV and his successors may have had the illusion that they were taking the place of the German emperors in European affairs. The papacy was imprisoned on their territory; the German empire was passing through a crisis, was, in fact, decaying, and the kings of France might well imagine themselves temporal vicars of God, side by side with, or even in opposition to, the spiritual vicar who lived at Avignon.

But at this juncture the Hundred Years War broke out, and the French kingdom, which aspired to be the arbiter of Christendom, was menaced in its very existence by England. English kings aimed at the French crown, and the two nations fought for the possession of Guienne. Twice during the war was the independence of France imperilled. Defeated on the Ecluse (1340), at Crécy (1346), at Poitiers (1356), France was saved by Charles V (1364-80) and by Duguesclin, only to suffer French defeat under Charles VI at Agincourt (1415) and to be ceded by the Treaty of Troyes to Henry V, King of England. At this darkest hour of the monarchy, the nation itself was stirred. The revolutionary attempt by Etienne Marcel (1358), and the revolt which gave rise to the Ordonnace Cabochienne (1418) were the earliest signs of popular impatience at the absolutism of the French kings, but internal dissensions hindered an effective patriotic defence of the country. When Charles VII came to the throne, France had almost ceased to be French. The king and court lived beyond the Loire, and Paris was the seat of an English government. Blessed Joan of Arc was the saviour of French nationality as well as French royalty, and at the end of Charles' reign (1422-61) Calais was the only spot in France in the hands of the English.

The ideal of a united Christendom continued to haunt the soul of France in spite of the predominating influence gradually assumed in French politics by purely national aspirations. From the reign of Charles VI, or even the last years of Charles V, dates the custom of giving to French kings the exclusive title of Rex Christianissimus. Pepin the Short and Charlemagne had been proclaimed "Most Christian" by the popes of their day: Alexander III had conferred the same title on Louis VII; but from Charles VI onwards the title comes into constant use as the special prerogative of the kings of France. "Because of the vigour with which Charlemagne, St. Louis, and other brave French kings, more than the other kings of Christendom, have upheld the Catholic Faith, the kings of France are known among the kings of Christendom as 'Most Christian'." Thus wrote Philippe de Mézières, a contemporary of Charles VI. In later times, the Emperor Frederick III, addressing Charles VII, wrote "Your ancestors have won for your name the title Most Christian, as a heritage not to be separated from it." From the pontificate of Paul II (1464), the popes, in addressing bulls to the kings of France, always use the style and title Rex Christianissimus. Furthermore, European public opinion always looked upon Bl. Joan of Arc, who saved the French monarchy, as the heroine of Christendom, and believed that the Maid of Orléans meant to lead the king of France on another crusade when she had secured him in the peaceful possession of his own country. France's national heroine was thus heralded by the fancy of her contemporaries, by Christine de Pisan, and by that Venetian merchant whose letters have been preserved for us in the Morosini Chronicle, as a heroine whose aims were as wide as Christianity itself.

The fifteenth century, during which France was growing in national spirit, and while men's minds were still conscious of the claims of Christendom on their country, was also the century during which, on the morrow of the Great Schism and of the Councils of Basle and of Constance, there began a movement among the powerful feudal bishops against pope and king, and which aimed at the emancipation of the Gallican Church. The propositions upheld by Gerson, and forced by him, as representing the University of Paris, on the Council of Constance, would have set up in the Church an aristocratic regime analogous to what the feudal lords. profiting by the weakness of Charles VI, had dreamed of establishing in the State. A royal proclamation in 1518, issued after the election of Martin V maintained in opposition to the pope "all the privileges and franchises of the kingdom," put an end to the custom of annates, limited the rights of the Roman court in collecting benefices, and forbade the sending to Rome of articles of gold or silver. This proposition was assented to by the young King Charles VII in 1423, but at the same time he sent Pope Martin V an embassy asking to be absolved from the oath he had taken to uphold the principles of the Gallican Church and seeking to arrange a concordat which would give the French king a right of patronage over 500 benefices in his kingdom. This was the beginning of the practice adopted by French kings of arranging the government of the Church directly with the popes over the heads of the bishops. Charles VII, whose struggle with England had left his authority still very precarious, was constrained, in 1438, during the Council of Basle, in order to appease the powerful prelates of the Assembly of Bourges, to promulgate the Pragmatic Sanction, thereby asserting in France those maxims of the Council of Basle which Pope Eugene had condemned. But straightway he bethought him of a concordat, and overtures in this sense were made to Eugene IV. Eugene replied that he well knew the Pragmatic Sanction -- "that odious act" -- was not the king's own free doing and a concordat was discussed between them. Louis XI (1461-83), whose domestic policy aimed at ending or weakening the new feudalism which had grown up during two centuries through the custom of presenting appanages to the brothers of the king, extended to the feudal bishops the ill will he professed toward the feudal lords. He detested the Pragmatic Sanction as an act that strengthened ecclesiastical feudalism, and on 27 November, 1461, he announced to the pope its suppression. At the same time he pleaded, as the demand of his Parliament, that for the future the pope should permit the collation of ecclesiastical benefices to be made either wholly or in part through the civil power. The Concordat of 1472 obtained from Rome very material concessions in this respect. At this time, besides "episcopal Gallicanism", against which pope and king were working together, we may trace, in the writings of the lawyers of the closing years of the fifteenth century, the beginnings of a "royal Gallicanism" which taught that in France the State should govern the Church.

The Italian wars undertaken by Charles VIII (1493-98), and continued by Louis XII (1498-1515), aided by an excellent corps of artillery, and all the resources of French furia, to assert certain French claims over Naples and Milan, did not quite fulfill the dreams of the French kings. They had, however, a threefold result in the worlds of politics, religion, and art. Politically, they led foreign powers to believe that France was a menace to the balance of power, and hence arouse alliances to maintain that balance, such, for instance, as the League of Venice (1495), and the Holy League (1511-12). From the point of view of art, their carried a breath of the Renaissance across the Alps. And in the religious world they furnished France an opportunity on Italian soil of asserting for the first time the principles of royal Gallicanism. Louis XII, and the emperor Maximilian, supported by the opponents of Pope Julius II, convened in Pisa a council that threatened the rights of the Holy See. Matters looked very serious. The understanding between the pope and the French kings hung in the balance. Leo X understood the danger when the victory of Marignano opened to Francis I the road to Rome. The pope in alarm retired to Bologna, and the Concordat of 1516, negotiated between the cardinals and Duprat, the chancellor, and afterwards approved of by the Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, recognized the right of the King of France to nominate not only to 500 ecclesiastical benefices, as Charles VII had requested, but to all the benefices in his kingdom. It was a fair gift indeed. But if in matters temporal the bishops were thus in the king's hands, their institution in matters spiritual was reserved to the pope. Pope and king by common agreement thus put an end to an episcopal aristocracy such as the Gallicans of the great councils had dreamed of. The concordat between Leo X and Francis I was tantamount to a solemn repudiation of all the anti-Roman work of the great councils of the fifteenth century. The conclusion of this concordat was one of the reasons why France escaped the Reformation. From the moment that the disposal of church property, as laid down by the concordat, belonged to the civil power, royalty had nothing to gain from the Reformation. Whereas the kings of England and the German princelings saw in the reformation a chance to gain possession of ecclesiastical property, the kings of France, thanks to the concordat, were already in legal possession of those much-envied goods. When Charles V became King of Spain (1516) and emperor (1519), thus uniting in his person the hereditary possessions of the House of Austria and German, as well as the old domains of the House of Burgundy in the Low Countries -- uniting moreover the Spanish monarchy with Naples, Sicily, Sardinia, the northern part of Africa, and certain lands in America, Francis I inaugurated a struggle between France and the House of Austria. After forty-four years of war, from the victory of Marignano to the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1515-59), France relinquished hopes of retaining possession of Italy, but wrested the Bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun from the empire and had won back possession of Calais. The Spaniards were left in possession of Naples and the country around Milan, and their influence predominated throughout the Italian Peninsula. But the dream which Charles V had for a brief moment entertained of a world-wide empire had been shattered.

During this struggle against the House of Austria, France, for motives of political and military exigency, had been obliged to lean in the Lutherans of Germany, and even on the sultan. The foreign policy of France since the time of Francis I had been to seek exclusively the good of the nation and no longer to be guided by the interests of Catholicism at large. The France of the Crusades even became the ally of the sultan. But, by a strange anomaly, this new political grouping allowed France to continue its protection to the Christians of the East. In the Middle Ages it protected them by force of arms; but since the sixteenth centuries, by treaties called capitulations, the first of which was drawn up in 1535. The spirit of French policy had changed, but it is always on France that the Christian communities of the East rely, and this protectorate continues to exist under the Third Republic, and has never failed them.

The early part of the sixteenth century was marked by the growth of Protestantism in France, under the forms of Lutheranism and of Calvinism. Lutheranism was the first to make its entry. The minds of some in France were already prepared to receive it. Six years before Luther's time, the archbishop Lefebvre of Etaples (Faber Stapulensis), a protégé of Louis XII and of Francis I, had preached the necessity of reading the scriptures and of "bringing back religion to its primitive purity". A certain number of tradesmen, some of whom, for business reasons, had travelled in Germany, and a few priests, were infatuated with Lutheran ideas. Until 1634, Francis I was almost favorable to the Lutherans, and he even proposed to make Melanchthon President of the Collège de France. But on learning, in 1534, that violent placards against the Church of Rome had been posted on the same day in many of the large towns, and even near the king's own room in the Château d'Amboise, he feared a Lutheran plot; an inquiry was ordered, and seven Lutherans were condemned to death and burned at the stake in Paris. Eminent ecclesiastics like du Bellay, Archbishop of Paris, and Sadolet, Bishop of Carpentras, deplored these executions, and the Valdois massacre ordered by d'Oppède, President of the Parliament of Aix, in 1545. Laymen, on the other hand, who ill understood the Christian gentleness of these prelates, reproached them with being slow and remiss in putting down heresy; and when, under Henry II, Calvinism crept in from Geneva, a policy of persecution was inaugurated. From 1547 to 1550, in less than three years, the chambre ardente, a committee of the Parliament of Paris, condemned more than 500 persons to retract their beliefs, to imprisonment, or to death at the stake. Notwithstanding this, the Calvinists, in 1555, were able to organize themselves into Churches on the plan of that at Geneva; and, in order to bind these Churches more closely together, they held a synod in Paris in 1559. There were in France at that time seventy-two Reformed Churches; two years later, in 1561, the number had increased to 2000. The methods, too, of the Calvinist propaganda had changed. The earlier Calvinists, like the Lutherans, had been artists and workingmen, but in the course of time, in the South and in the West, a number of princes and noblemen joined their ranks. Among these were two princes of the blood, descendants of St. Louis: Anthony of Bourbon, who became King of Navarre through his marriage with Jeanne d'Albret, and his brother the Prince de Condé. Another name of note is that of Admiral de Coligny, nephew of that duke of Montmorency who was the Premier Baron of Christendom. Thus it came to pass that in France Calvinism was not longer a religious force, but had become a political and military cabal; and the French kings in opposing it were but defending their own rights.

Such was the beginning of the Wars of Religion. They had for their starting-point the conspiracy of Amboise (1560) by which the Protestant leaders aimed at seizing the person of Francis II, in order to remove him from the influence of Francis of Guise. During the reigns of Francis II, Charles IX, and Henry III, a powerful influence was exercised by the queen-mother, who made use of the conflicts between the opposing religious factions to establish more securely the power of her sons. In 1561, Catharine de' Medici arranged for the Poissy discussion to try and bring about an understanding between the two creeds, but during the Wars of religion she ever maintained an equivocal attitude between both parties, favouring now the one and now the other, until the time came when, fearing that Charles IX would shake himself free of her influence, she took a large share of responsibility in the odious massacre of St. Bartholomew. There were eight of these wars in the space of thirty years. The first was started by a massacre of Calvinists at Vassy by the troopers of Guise (1 March, 1562), and straightway both parties appealed for foreign aid. Catharine, who was at this time working in the Catholic cause, turned to Spain; Coligny and Condé turned to Elizabeth of England and turned over to her the port of Havre. Thus from the beginning were foreshadowed the lines which the Wars of religion would follow. They opened up France to the interference of such foreign princes as Elizabeth and Philip II, and to the plunder of foreign soldiers, such as those of the Duke of Alba and the German troopers (Reiter) called in by the Protestants. One after another, these wars ended in weak provisional treaties which did not last. Under the banners of the Reformation party or those of the League organized by the House of Guise to defend Catholicism, political opinions ranged themselves, and during these thirty years of civil disorder monarchical centralization was often in trouble of overthrow. Had the Guise party prevailed, the trend of policy adopted by the French monarchy towards Catholicism after the Concordat of Francis I would have been assuredly less Gallican. That concordat had placed the Church of France and its episcopate in the hands of the king. The old episcopal Gallicanism which held that the authority of the pope was not above that of the Church assembled in council and the royal Gallicanism which held that the king had no superior on the earth, not even the pope, were now allied against the papal monarchy strengthened by the Council of Trent. The consequence of all this was that the French kings refused to allow the decisions of that council to be published in France, and this refusal has never been withdrawn.

At the end of the sixteenth century it seemed for an instant as though the home party of France was to shake off the yoke of Gallican opinions. Feudalism had been broken; the people were eager for liberty; the Catholics, disheartened by the corruption of the Valois court, contemplated elevating to the throne, in succession to Henry II, who was childless, a member of the powerful House of Guise. In fact, the League had asked the Holy See to grant the wish of the people, and give France a Guise as king. Henry of Navarre, the heir presumptive to the throne, was a Protestant; Sixtus V had given him the choice of remaining a Protestant, and never reigning in France, or of abjuring his heresy, receiving absolution from the pope himself, and, together with it, the throne of France. But there was third solution possible, and the French episcopate foresaw it, namely that the abjuration should be made not to the pope but to the French bishops. Gallican susceptibilities would thus be satisfied, dogmatic orthodoxy would be maintained on the French throne, and moreover it would do away with the danger to which the unity of France was exposed by the proneness of a certain number of Leaguers to encourage the intervention of Spanish armies and the ambitions of the Spanish king, Philip II, who cherished the idea of setting his own daughter in the throne of France.

The abjuration of Henry IV made to the French bishops (25 July, 1593) was a victory of Catholicism over Protestantism, but none the less it was the victory of episcopal Gallicanism over the spirit of the League. Canonically, the absolution given by the bishops to Henry IV was unavailing, since the pope alone could lawfully give it; but politically that absolution was bound to have a decisive effect. From the day that Henry IV became a Catholic, the League was beaten. Two French prelates went to Rome to crave absolution for Henry. St. Philip Neri ordered Baronius -- smiling, no doubt, as he did so -- to tell the pope, whose confessor he, Baronius was, that he himself could not have absolution until he had absolved the King of France. And on 17 September, 1595, the Holy See solemnly absolved Henry IV, thereby sealing the reconciliation between the French monarchy and the Church of Rome. The accession of the Bourbon royal family was a defeat for Protestantism, but at the same time half a victory for Gallicanism. Ever since the year 1598 the dealing of the Bourbons with Protestantism were regulated by the Edict of Nantes. This instrument not only accorded the Protestants the liberty of practicing their religion in their own homes, in the towns and villages where it had been established before 1597, and in two localities in each bailliage, but also opened to them all employments and created mixed tribunals in which judges were chosen equally from among Catholics and Calvinists; it furthermore made them a political power by recognizing them for eight years as master of about one hundred towns which were known as "places of surety" (places de sûreté). Under favour of the political causes of the Edict Protestants rapidly became an imperium in imperio, and in 1627, at La Rochelle, they formed an alliance with England to defend, against the government of Louis XIII (1610-43), the privileges of which Cardinal Richelieu, the king's minister, wished to deprive them. The taking of La Rochelle by the king's troops (November, 1628), after a siege of fourteen months, and the submission of the Protestant rebels in the Cévenes, resulted in a royal decision which Richelieu called the Grâce d'Alais: the Protestants lost all their political privileges and all their "places of surety" but on the other hand freedom of worship and absolute equality with Catholics were guaranteed them. Both Cardinal Richelieu, and his successor, Cardinal Mazarin, scrupulously observed this guarantee, but under Louis XIV a new policy was inaugurated. For twenty-five years the king forbade the Protestants everything that the edict of Nantes did not expressly guarantee them, and then, foolishly imagining that Protestantism was on the wane, and that there remained in France only a few hundred obstinate heretics, he revoked the Edict of Nantes (1685) and began an oppressive policy against Protestants, which provoked the rising of the Camisards in 1703-05, and which lasted with alternations of severity and kindness until 1784, when Louis XVI was obliged to give Protestants their civil rights once more. The very manner in which Louis XIV, who imagined himself the religious head of his kingdom, set about the Revocation, was only an application of the religious maxims of Gallicanism.

In the person of Louis XIV, indeed, Gallicanism was on the throne. At the States-General in 1614, the tiers état had endeavoured to make the assembly commit itself to certain decidedly Gallican declarations, but the clergy, thanks to Cardinal Duperron, had succeeded in shelving the question; then Richelieu careful; not to embroil himself with the pope, had taken up the mitigated and very reserved form of Gallicanism represented by the theologian Duval. As for Louis XIV, he considers himself a God on earth -- his religion is the State's; every subject who does not hold that religion is outside of the State. Hence the persecution of Protestants and of Jansenists. But at the same time he would never allow a papal Bull to be published in France until his Parliament decided whether it interfered with the "liberties" of the French Church or the authority of the king. And in 1682 he invited the clergy of France to proclaim the independence of the Gallican Church in a manifesto of four articles, at least two of which -- relating to the respective powers of a pope and a council -- broached questions which only an ecumenical council could decide. In consequence of this a crisis arose between the Holy See and Louis XIV which led to thirty-five sees being left vacant in 1689. The policy of Louis XIV in religious matters was adopted also by Louis XV. His way of striking at the Jesuits in 1763 was in principal the same as that taken by Louis XIV to impose Gallicanism on the Church -- the royal power pretending to mastery over the Church. The domestic policy of the seventeenth-century Bourbons, aided by Scully, Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louvois, completed the centralization of the kingly power. Abroad, the fundamental maxim of their policy was to keep up the struggle against the House of Austria. The result of the diplomacy of Richelieu (1624-42) and of Mazarin (1643-61) was a fresh defeat for the House of Austria; French arms were victorious at Rocroi, Fribourg, Nördlingen, Lens, Sommershausen (1643-48), and by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) and that of the Pyrenees (1659), Alsace, Artois, and Roussillion were annexed to French territory. In the struggle Richelieu and Mazarin had the support of the Lutheran prince of Germany and of Protestant countries such as the Sweden of Gustavus Adolphus. In fact in may be laid down that during the Thirty Years War, France upheld Protestantism. Louis XIV, on the contrary, who for many years was arbiter of the destinies of Europe, was actuated by purely religious motives in some of his wars. Thus the war against Holland, and that against the League of Augsburg, and his intervention in the affairs of England were in some respects the result of of religious policy and of a desire to uphold Catholicism in Europe. The expeditions in the Mediterranean against the pirates of Barbary have all the halo of the old ideals of Christendom -- ideals which in the days of Louis XIII had haunted the mind of Father Joseph, the famous confidant of Richelieu, and had inspired him with the dream of crusades led by France, once the House of Austria should have been defeated.

The long and complex reign of Louis XIV, in spite of the disasters which mark its close, gained for France the possession of Flanders, and of Franche-Comté, and saw a Bourbon, Philip V, grandson of Louis XIV, seated on the throne of Spain. The seventeenth century in France was par excellence a century of Catholic awakening. A number of bishops set about reforming their diocese according to the rules laid down by the Council of Trent, though its decrees did not run officially in France. The example of Italy bore fruit all over the country. Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, Bishop of Claremont and afterwards of Senlis, had made the acquaintance of St. Charles Borromeo. Francis Taurugi, a companion of St. Philip Neri, was archbishop of Avignon. St. Francis de Sales Christianized lay society by his "Introduction to the Devout Life", which he wrote at the request of Henry IV. Cardinal de Bérulle and his disciple de Condren founded the Oratory. St. Vincent de Paul, in founding the Priests of the Mission, and M. Olier, in founding the Sulpicians, prepared the uplifting of the secular clergy, and the development of the grands séminaires. It was the period, too, when France began to build up her colonial empire, when Samuel de Champlain was founding prosperous settlements in Acadia and Canada. At the suggestion of Père Coton, confessor to Henry IV, the Jesuits followed in the wake of the colonists; they made Quebec the capital of all that country, and gave it a Frenchman, Mgr. de Montmorency-Laval as its first bishop. The first apostles to the Iroquois were the French Jesuits, Lallemant and de Brébeuf; and it was the French missionaries, as much as the traders who opened postal communication over 500 leagues of countries between the French colonies in Louisiana and Canada. In China, the French Jesuits, by their scientific labours, gained a real influence at court and converted at least one Chinese prince. Lastly, from the beginning of this same seventeenth century, under the protection of Gontaut-Biron, Marquis de Salignac, Ambassador of France, dates the establishment of the Jesuits at Smyrna, in the Archipelago, in Syria, and at Cairo. A Capuchin, Père Joseph du Tremblay, Richelieu's confessor, established many Capuchin foundations in the East. A pious Parisian lady, Madame Ricouard, gave a sum of money for the erection of a bishopric at Babylon, and its first bishop was a French Carmelite, Jean Duval. St. Vincent De Paul sent the Lazarists into the galleys and prisons of Barbary, and among the islands of Madagascar, Bourbon, Mauritius, and the Mascarenes, to take possession of them in the name of France. On the advice of Jesuit Father de Rhodes, Propaganda and France decided to erect bishoprics in Annam, and in 1660 and 1661 three French bishops, François Pallu, Pierre Lambert de Lamothe, and Cotrolendi, set out for the East. It was the activities of the French missionaries that paved the way for the visit of the Siamese envoys to the court of Louis XIV. In 1663 the Seminary for Foreign Missions was founded, and in 1700 the Société de Missions Etrangères, received its approved constitution, which has never been altered.

To repeat a saying of Ferdinand Brunetière, the eighteenth century was the least Christian and least French century in the history of France. Religiously speaking, the alliance of parliamentary Gallicanism and Jansenism weakened the idea of religion in an atmosphere already threatened by philosophers, and although the monarchy continued to keep the style and title of "Most Christian", unbelief and libertinage were harboured, and at times defended, at the court of Louis XV (1715-74), in the salons, and among the aristocracy. Politically, the tradition strife between France and the House of Austria ended, about the middle of the eighteenth century, with the famous Renversement des Alliances (see Choiseul, Etienne-François, Duc de; Fleury, Andre-Hercule de). This century is filled with that struggle between France and England which may be called the second Hundred Years War, during which England had for an ally Frederick II, King of Prussia, a country which was then rapidly rising in importance. The command of the sea was at stake. In spite of men like Dupliex, Lally-Tollendal, and Montcalm, France lightly abandoned its colonies by successive treaties, the most important of which was the Treaty of Paris (1763). The acquisition of Lorraine (1766), and the purchase of Corsica from the Genoese (1768) were poor compensations for these losses; and when, under Louis XVI, the French navy once more raised its head, it helped in the revolt of the English colonies in America, and thus seconded the emancipation of the United States (1778-83).

The movement of thought of which Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Diderot, each in his own fashion, had been protagonists, an impatience provoked by the abuses incident to a too centralized monarchy, and the yearning for equality which was deeply agitating the French people, all prepared the explosion of the French Revolution, That upheaval has been too long regarded as a break in the history of France. The researches of Albert Sorel have proved that the diplomatic traditions of the old regime were perpetuated under the Revolution; the idea of the State's ascendancy over the Church, which had actuated the ministers of Louis XIV and the adherents of Parliament -- the parliamentaires -- in the days of Louis XV reappears with the authors of the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy", even as the centralizing spirit of the old monarchy reappears with the administrative officials and the commissaries of the Convention. It is easier to cut off a king's head than to change the mental constitution of a people.

The Constituent Assembly (5 May, 1789-30 September, 1791) rejected the motion of the Abbé d'Eymar declaring the Catholic religion to be the religion of the State, but it did not thereby mean to place the Catholic religion on the same level as other religions. Voulland, addressing the Assembly on the seemliness of having one dominant religion, declared that the Catholic religion was founded on too pure a moral basis not to be given the first place. Article 10 of the "Declarations of the Rights of Man" (August, 1789) proclaimed toleration, stipulating "that no one ought to be interfered with because of his opinions, even religious, provided that their manifestation does not disturb public order" (pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l'ordre public établi par là). It was by virtue of the suppression of feudal privileges, and in accordance with the ideas professed by the lawyers of the old regime where church property was in question that the Constituent Assembly abolished tithes and confiscated the possessions of the Church, replacing them by an annuity grant from the treasury. The "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" was a more serious interference with the life of French Catholicism, and it was drawn up at the instigation of Jansenist lawyers. Without referring to the pope, it set up a new division into diocese, gave the voters, no matter who they might be, a right to nominate parish priests and bishops, ordered metropolitans to take charge of the canonical institution of their sufferagans, and forbade the bishops to seek a Bull of confirmation in office from Rome. The Constituent Assembly required all priests to swear to obey this constitution, which received the unwilling sanction of Louis XVI, 26 December, 1790, and was condemned by Pius VI. By Briefs dated 10 March and 13 April, Pius VI forbade the priests to take the oath, and the majority obeyed him. Against these "unsworn" (insermentés) or "refractory" priests a period of persecution soon began. The Legislative Assembly (1 October, 1791-21 September, 1792), while it prepared the way for the republic which both the great parties (the Mountain and the Girondists) equally wished, only aggravated the religious difficulty. On 19 November, 1791, it decreed that those priests who had not accepted the "Civil Constitution" would be required with a week to swear allegiance to the nation, to the law, and to the king, under pain of having their allowances stopped and of being held as suspects. The king refused to approve this, and (26 August, 1792) it declared that all refractory priests show leave France under pain of ten years' imprisonment or transportation to Guiana.

The Convention (21 September, 1792-26 October, 1795) which proclaimed the republic and caused Louis XVI to be executed (21 January, 1793), followed a very tortuous policy toward religion. As early as 13 November, 1792, Cambon, in the name of the Financial Committee, announced to the Convention that he would speedily submit a scheme of general reform including a suppression of the appropriation for religious worship, which, he asserted, cost the republic "100,000,000 livres annually". The Jacobins opposed this scheme as premature, and Robespierre declared it derogatory to public morality. During the first eight months of its existence the policy of the Convention was to maintain the "Civil Constitution" and to increase the penalties against "refractory" priests who were suspected of complicity on the Vendée rising. A decree dated 18 March, 1793, punished with death all compromised priests. It no longer aimed at refractory priests only, but any ecclesiastic accused of disloyalty (incivisme) by any six citizens became liable to transportation. In the eyes of the revolution, there were no longer good priests and bad priests; for the sans-culottes every priest was suspect.

Then, from the provinces, stirred up by the propaganda of André Dumont, Chaumette, and Fouché, there began a movement of dechristianization. The constitutional bishop, Gobrel, abdicated in November, 1793, together with his vicars-general. At the feast of Liberty which took place in Notre-Dame on 10 November an altar was set up to the Goddess of Reason, and the church of Our Lady became the temple of that goddess. Some days after this a deputation attired in priestly vestments, in mockery of Catholic worship, paraded before the Convention. The Commune of Paris, on 24 November, 1793, with Chaumette as its spokesman, demanded the closing of all churches. But the Committee of Public Safety was in favour of temporizing, to avoid frightening the populace and scandalizing Europe. On 21 November, 1793, Robespierre, speaking from the Jacobin tribune of the Convention, protested against the violence of the dechristianizing party, and in December the Committee of Public Safety induced the Convention to pass a decree ensuring freedom of worship, and forbidding the closing of Catholic churches. Everywhere throughout the provinces civil war was breaking out between the peasants, who clung to their religion and faith, and the fanatics of the Revolution, who, in the name of patriotism threatened, as they said, by the priests, were overturning the altars. According to the locality in which they happened to be, the propagandists either encouraged or hindered this violence against religion; but even in the every bitterest days of the terror, there was never a moment when Catholic worship was suppressed throughout France.

When Robespierre had sent the partisans of Hébert and of Danton to the scaffold, he attempted to set up in France what he called la religion de l'Etre Suprême. Liberty of conscience was suppressed, but atheism was also a crime. Quoting the words of Rousseau about the indispensable dogmas, Robespierre had himself proclaimed a religious leader, a pontiff, and a dictator; and the worship of the Etre Suprême was held up by his supporters as the religious embodiment of patriotism. But after the 9th of Thermidor, Cambon proposed once more the principle of separation between Church and State, and it was decided that henceforth the Republic would not pay the expenses of any form of worship (18 September, 1794). The Convention next voted the laicization of the primary schools, and the establishment, at intervals of ten days, of feasts called fêtes décadaires. When Bishop Grégoire in a speech ventured to hope that Catholicism would some day spring up anew, the Convention protested. Nevertheless the people in the provinces were anxious that the clergy should resume their functions, and "constitutional" priests, less in danger than the others, rebuilt the altars here and there throughout the country. In February, 1795, Boissy-d'Anglas carried a measure of religious liberty, and the very next day Mass was said in all the chapels of Paris. On Easter Sunday, 1795, in the same city which, a few months before, had applauded the worship of Reason, almost every shop closed its doors. In May, 1795, the Convention restored the churches for worship, on condition that the pastors should submit to the laws of the State; in September, 1795, less than a month before its dissolution, it regulated liberty of worship by a police law, and enacted severe penalties against priests liable to transportation or imprisonment who should venture back on French soil. The Directory (27 October, 1795 -- 9 November, 1799), which succeeded the Convention, imposed on all religious ministers (Fructidor, Year V) the obligation of swearing hatred to royalty and anarchy. A certain number of "papist" priests took the oath, and the "papist" religion was thus established here and there, though it continued to be disturbed by the incessant arbitrary acts of interference on the part of the administrative staff of the Directory, who by individual warrants deported priests charged with inciting to disturbance. In this way, 1657 French and 8235 Belgian, priests were driven into exile. The aim of the Directory was to substitute for Catholicism the culte décadaire, and for Sunday observance the rest on the décadis, or tenth days. In Paris, fifteen churches were given over to this cult. The Directory also favored an unofficial attempt of Chemin, the writer, and a few of his friends to set up a kind of national Church under the name of "Theophilanthropy"; but Theophilanthropy and the culte décadaire, while they disturbed the Church, did not satisfy the needs of the people for priests, altars, and the traditional festivals.

All these were restored by the Concordat of Napoleon Bonaparte, who became Consul for ten years on 4 November, 1799. The Concordat assured to French Catholicism, in spite of the interpolation of the articles organiques, a hundred years of peace. The conduct of Napoleon I, when he became emperor (18 May, 1804) towards Pius VII was most offensive to the papacy; but even during those years when Napoleon was ill-treating Pius VII and keeping him a prisoner, Catholicism in France was reviving and expanding day by day. Numerous religious congregations came to life again or grew up rapidly, often under the guidance of simple priests or humble women. The Sisters of Christian Schools of Mercy, who work in hospitals and schools, date from 1802, as do the Sisters of Providence of Langres; the Sisters of Mercy of Montauban from 1804; the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus at St-Julien-du-Gua date from 1805. In 1806 we have the Sisters of Reuilly-sur-Loire, founded by the Abbé Dujarie; the Sisters of St. Regis at Aubenis, founded by the Abbé Therne; the Sisters of Notre Dame de Bon Secours at Charly; the Sisters of Mercy of Billom. the Sisters of Wisdom founded by Blessed Grignon de Montfort, remodeled their institutions at this time in La Vendée, and Madame Dupleix was founding at Lyons and at Durat the Confraternity of Mary and Joseph for visiting the prisons. The year 1807 saw the coming of the Sisters of Christian Teaching and Nursing (de l'Instruction chrétienne et des malades) of St-Gildas-des-Bois founded by the Abbé Deshayes and the great teaching order of the Sisters of Ste-Chrétienne of Metz. In 1809 there appeared in Aveyron the Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary; in 1810, the sisters of St. Joseph of Vaur (Ardéche), the Sister Hospitallers of Rennes, and the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny. -- Such was the fruit of eight years of religious revival, and the list could easily be continued through the years that followed.

In the Wars of the Revolution, which began 20 April, 1792, the French missionary qualities which, under the old regime, had been employed in the service of the Christian ideal were consecrated to "the Rights of Man" and to emancipating the people from "the tyrants"; but in the Napoleonic Wars which followed, these very peoples, fired with the principles of liberty which had come to them from France, expressed their newly developed national consciousness in a struggle against French armies. In this way the propaganda of the Revolution had in the end a disastrous reaction on the very country where its ideals originated. During the nineteenth century France was destined to undertake several wars for the emancipation of nationalities -- the Greek War (1827-28) under the Restoration; the Italian War (1859) under the second Empire -- and it was in the name of the principle of nationality that the Second Empire to grow until, in 1870, it had reached its full growth at the expense of France.

Under the Restoration parliamentary government was introduced into France. The revolution of July, 1830, the "liberal" and "bourgeois" revolution asserted against the absolutism of Charles X those rights which had been guaranteed to Frenchmen by the Constitution -- the "Charte" as it was called -- and brought to the throne of Louis Phillipe, Duke of Orléans, during whose reign as "King of the French", the establishment of French rule in Algeria was finally completed. One of the most admirable charitable institutions of French origin dates from the July Monarchy, namely the Little Sisters of the Poor begun (1840) by Jeanne Jugan, Franchon Aubert, Marie Jamet, and Virginie Trédaniel, poor working-women who formed themselves into an association to take care of one blind old woman. In 1900 the congregation thus begun counted 3000 Little Sisters distributed among 250 to 260 houses all over the world, and caring for 28,000 old people. Under the July Monarchy, also, the conferences of St. Vincent De Paul were founded, the first of them at Paris, in May, 1883, by pious laymen under the prompting of Ozanam, for the material and moral assistance of poor families; in 1900 there were in France alone 1224 of these conferences, and in the whole world 5000. In 1895 the city of Paris had 208 conferences caring for 7908 families. The mean annual receipts of the conferences of St. Vincent De Paul in the whole of France amount to 2,198,566 francs ($440,000.00 or £88,000). In 1906 the receipts from the conferences all over the world amounted to 13,453,228 francs ($2,690,645), and their expenditures to 13,541,504 francs ($2,708,300), while, to meet extraordinary demands, they had a reserve balance of 3,069,154 francs ($613,830). The annual expenditure always exceeds the annual amount received. As Cardinal Regnier was fond of saying, "The conferences have taken the vow of poverty."

The Revolution of February, 1848, against Louis Philippe and Guizot, his minister, who wished to maintain a property qualification for the suffrage, led to the establishment of the Second Republic and universal suffrage. By granting liberty of teaching (Loi Falloux), and by sending an army to Rome to assist Pius IX, it earned the gratitude of Catholics. At this point in history, when so many social and democratic aspirations were being agitated, the social efficaciousness of Christian thought was demonstrated by Vicomte de Melun, who developed the "Société Charitable" and the "Annales de la Charité" and carried a law on old-age pensions and mutual benefit societies; and by Le Prévost, founder of the Congregation of the Brothers of St. Vincent De Paul, who, leading a religious life in the garb of laymen, visited among the working classes.

The Second Empire, the issue of Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's coup d'êtat (2 December, 1851), affirmed universal sufferage and this secured the victory of French democracy; but it reduced parlementarisme to an insignificant rôle, the Plébescite being employed as an ordinary means of ascertaining the will of the people. It was the second empire, too, that gave Nizza, Savoy, and Cochin-China to France.

THE THIRD REPUBLIC

The Third Republic -- tumultuously proclaimed, 4 September, 1870, on the ruins of the empire overthrown at Sedan -- was victorious, thanks to Thiers and the army of Versailles, over the Parisian outbreak called the Commune (March-May, 1871). Effectively defined by the Constitution of 1875, it had to acquiesce in the Treaty of Frankfort (1871) by which Alsace and Lorraine were ceded to Germany. On the other hand, it enriched the colonial possessions, or the sphere of influence, of France by the acquisition of Tongking, Tunis, and Madagascar. Under the Third Republic, a parliamentary system with two chambers was established on the double principle of a responsible ministry and a president above all responsibility, the latter elected by the two chambers for a period of seven years. Thiers, MacMahon, Jules Grévy, Sadi-Carnot, Félix Faure, Emile Loubet, Armand Falliérres have been successively at the head of the French state since 1870.

Through all these changes in government, French foreign policy, either knowingly or by force of habit and precedent, has been of service to the Catholic Church, service amply repaid by the Church by perpetuating in some measure the Christian ideal of earlier times. The Crimean War, undertaken (1855) by Napoleon III, originated in the desire to protect Latin Christians in Palestine, the clients of France, against Russian encroachments. During the course of the nineteenth century French diplomacy at Rome and in the East has aimed at safeguarding the prerogatives of France as patron of Oriental Christendom, and of thus justifying the traditional trust of the Orientals in the "Franks" as the natural champions of Christianity in the Ottoman Empire. French influence in this field was threatened by Austria, Italy, and German in turn; the first of these powers alleged certain treaties with the sultan, daring from the eighteenth century as giving it the right to defend Catholic interests at the Sublime Porte; the other two made repeated efforts to induce Italian and German missionaries to seek protection from their own consuls rather than those of France. But on 22 May, 1888, the circular "Aspera rerum conditio", signed by Cardinal Simeoni, Prefect of the Propaganda, commanded all missionaries to respect the prerogatives of France as their protecting power. Even at the present time, in spite of the separation of Church and State, the diplomacy of the Third Republic in the East enjoys the prestige acquired by the France of St. Louis and Francis I. And amid all the ideas and tendencies of "laicization" this protectorate continues to exist as relic and a right of Christian France -- "Anticlericalism is not an article for exportation" says Gambetta, and up to recent years this has always been the motto of Republican France. In spite of constant threats under which the congregations have lived during the Third Republic, it is unquestionable that certain important institutes have seen the number of its members increase notably. This is illustrated by the following table:

Institute -- Members (1879) -- Members (1900)

Socitété des Missions Estrangères -- 480 -- 1200

Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny -- 2067 -- 4000+

Daughters of Wisdom -- 3600 -- 4650

Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres -- 1119 -- 1732

Brothers of St. Gabriel -- 791 -- 1350

Little Brothers of Mary -- 3600 -- 4850

Little Sisters of the Poor -- 2683 -- 3073

Brothers of the Holy Spirit -- 515 -- 902

Taine has proved that vocations to the religious life increased remarkably in the France of the nineteenth century, when they were entirely spontaneous, as compared with the France of the eighteenth century, when many families, for worldly reasons, placed their daughters in convents.

MISSIONARY FRANCE IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

The reawakening of British Catholicism at the beginning of the nineteenth century was in some measure due to the influence of the French refugee clergy whom the Revolution had driven into exile. And when, in 1789, in the United States of America, John Carroll was named Bishop of Baltimore, it was to the Sulpician Fathers that he appealed to establish his seminary, thus preparing for the part which that splendid institute of French priests was to take, and still continues to play, in building up the Church in America. The discussion between Monsignor Duborg, Bishop of New Orleans, and Madame Petit, a widow of Lyons, on the spiritual needs of Louisiana (1815), and the letter written by Abbé Jaricot to his sister Pauline, who also lived at Lyons, on the poverty of the foreign missions (1819), led these two ladies to organize, each independently of the other, societies for the collection of alms from the faithful for the propagation of Christianity, and from these first feeble beginnings was born, 3 May, 1822, the great work known to English-speaking Catholics as the "Propagation of Lyons". In 1898, this society collected from one country or another 7,700,921 francs ($1,140,180.00 or £228,000) for missionary purposes. Of this sum, no less than 4, 077, 085 francs was contributed by France alone, while, in 1908, owing to the many needs of the Church at home, France's contribution fell from 6,402,586 francs to 3,082,131 francs. In 1898, the work of the Sainte-Enfance (The Holy Childhood), also of French origin, which aspires to save both the bodies and the souls of Chinese children, collected 3,615,845 francs (about $723,000.00 or £145,000), of which 1,094,092 francs came from France alone, while in 1908-09, for the reason referred to above, French generosity could only contribute 813,952 francs to this work, the general receipts of which amounted to 3,761,954 francs. That work in 1907-08 helped 236 missions, 1171 orphanages, 7372 schools, and 2480 manual-training establishments. In 1898, again, L'Oeuvre des Ecoles d'Orient, an association for supplying schools in the East, collected in France 584,056 francs, and in other countries only 27,596 francs. In 1898 the Society of African Missions collected 50,000 francs, the Anti-Slavery Society 120,000 francs, while the Good-Friday alms for the maintenance of the Holy Land amounted to 122,000 francs, making in all, for the year 1898, a total of 6,047,231 francs contributed by France to the foreign missionaries without distinction of nationality.

But France furnishes not only money but men and women to these missions. On the eve of the Law of 1901 Abbé Kannengieser compiled the following estimations of the religious, men and women, of French nationality engaged in mission work:

• Socitété des Missions Estrangères -- 1200
• Society of Jesus -- 750
• Lazarists -- 500
• Augustinians of the Assumption -- 216
• Brothers of the Christian Schools -- 813
• Capuchins -- 160
• Dominicans -- 80
• Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales -- 60
• Carmelites -- 14
• Marianists -- 80
• Little Brothers of Mary -- 359
• Oblates of St. Francis de Sales -- 25
• Franciscans -- 95
• Fathers of the Holy Spirit -- 429
• White Fathers -- 500
• African Missions -- 123
• Oblates of Mary Immaculate -- 400
• Marists -- 320
• Picpus Fathers -- 80
• Missionaries of Mary -- 46
• Brothers of St. Gabriel -- 53
• Redemptorists -- 100
• Priests of Bétharram -- 80
• Christian Brothers of Ploërmel -- 272
• Christian Brothers of the Sacred Heart -- 346
• Missionaries of the Sacred Heart -- 27
• Sulpician Fathers -- 30
• Congregation of the Holy Cross -- 40
• Fathers of Mercy -- 21
• Children of Mary Immaculate -- 15
• Brothers of Our Lady of the Annunciation -- 60
• Brothers of the Holy Family -- 40
• Benedictines of La-Pierre-qui-Vivre -- 25
• Fathers of La Salette -- 5
• Trappists -- 21

A similar list of the women engaged in religious work on the missions, drawn up on the eve of the Law of 1901, gave a grand total of 7745 religious men and 9150 religious women supplied by France alone for this work. The Missions Estrangères in 1908 had in its missions 37 bishops, 1371 missionaries, 778 native priests, 3050 catechists, 45 seminaries, 2081 seminary students, 305 religious men, 4075 religious women, 2000 Chinese virgins, 5700 churches and chapels, 347 crèches and orphanages, sheltering 20,409 children, 484 pharmacies and dispensaries, 108 hospitals and lepers asylums. Within the same year (1908) it brought about the baptism of 33,169 adults, and 139,956 infants. At Jerusalem Cardinal Lavigerie founded in 1855 the seminary of St. Anne for Oriental rites; the French Dominicans founded in 1890, at Jerusalem, a school for Biblical study, and on the northwest coast of Asia Minor, near Constantinople, the French Assumptionists reorganized the Uniat Greek Church, and prepared the way for the success of the Eucharistic Congress of 1893, presided over by the French Cardinal Langénieux, as legate of Pope Leo XIII, at which Christians of the may oriental rites were assembled. For the Lebanon district, French Jesuits have a school a Beirut with 520 students, for the most part medical, and a printing press unrivalled for its Arabic printing. Besides this they have 125 elementary schools about their university. At Smyrna French Lazarists have a congregation of 16,000 Catholics where, in 1800, there were only 3000. In Smyrna alone, the French schools, or schools under French influence, have upwards of 19,000 pupils, and in the vilayet of Smyrna nearly 3000 pupils. The schools of the French Capuchins in Palestine have 1000 pupils, those of the French Jesuits in European Turkey, 7000 pupils.

In 1860, France intervened on behalf of the Christians of the East, who were menaced by the fanaticism of Turks, Arabs, and Druses. It is on this occasion that Faud Pasha is reported to have said, pointing to some religious who were present, "I do not fear the 40,000 bayonets you have at Damascus, but I do fear those sixty robes there". At Mosul some French Dominicans, assisted by Sisters of the Presentation of Tours, have had a residence since 1856; they have established hospitals, workshops, and dispensaries all over Mesopotamia, as well as a Syro-Chaldean seminary. These missionaries won back to Christian unity, under the pontificate of Leo XIII, 50,000 Nestorians, and 30,000 Armenian Gregorians. In like manner, 26 Jesuits of the province of Lyons have been building schools throughout Armenian during the past thirty years. The old See of Babylon was replaced in 1844 by the See of Bagdad where a French bishop rules over 90,000 Catholics of various rites. In Persia, the French Lazarists have a congregation of 80,000 faithful where, in 1840, there were only 400. The French Capuchins established at Aden are breaking ground in Arabia. French Jesuits are evangelizing Ceylon. Under the priests of the Missions Etrangères, who are assisted by five communities of religious women, the number of Catholics in Pondicherry increased tenfold during the nineteenth century. Priests of St. Francis de Sales of Annecy have had charge of the vicariate of Vizagapatam since 1849. The city of Bombay alone has no fewer than twenty-seven conferences of ST. Vincent de Paul. In Burma the priests of the Missions Etrangères minister to 40,000 Catholics, were they were only 5000 in 1800. the mission of Siam, made famous by Fenélon, and ruined at the beginning of the nineteenth century, numbers to-day more than 20,000 souls. And at the Penang seminary, French priests are forming a native clergy. The nine French mission of Tongking and Cochin-China have 650,000 Catholics. It was a missionary, Mgr. Puginier, who, from 1880 to 1892, did so much to open up those regions to French exploration. "Where it not for the missionaries and the Christians", a Malay pirate once said, "The French in Tongking would be as helpless as crabs without legs."

China is the mission-field of Jesuits, Lazarists, and French priests of the Missions Etrangères. The French-Corean dictionary published by the priests of the Missions Etrangères; the works on Chinese philosophy, begin in the eighteenth century by the Jesuit Amiot, and carried on in the nineteenth century by the French Jesuits in their Chinese printing establishment at Zi-ka-wei; the researches in natural sciences made in China by the Lazarist David and the Jesuits Heude, Desgodins, Dechevrens; the works accomplished in the fields of astronomy and meteorology by the French Jesuits Zi-ka-wei -- all these achievements of French missionaries have won the applause of the learned world. In the nineteenth century the recovery of Japan to the Church was begun by Mgr Forcade, afterwards Archbishop of Aix, and French Marianists are labouring to build up a native Japanese clergy.

In Oceanica, since the year 1836, when Chanel, Bataillion, and a few other Marists came to take possession of the thousands of islands scattered between Japan and New Zealand, the work of evangelizing has gone through Australia, New Zealand, the Wallace Islands, New Caledonia, the New Hebrides, and Sydney Island. The Fathers of the Sacred Heart of Issoudun are in the Gilbert Isles; the Fathers of Picpus are working in the Hawaiian islands, Tahiti, and the Marquesas. The fame of Father Damien (Joseph Damien de Veuster), one of the Picpus Fathers, the apostle of the lepers at Molokai, has spread throughout the world.

In Africa Father Libermann (a converted Alsacian Jew) and his Congregation of the Holy Ghost and the Immaculate Heart of Mary undertook, in 1840, the evangelization of the black race. It has now spread over the whole of that pagan continent; and the missionaries established by Mgr Augouard in Ubangi are in the very heart of the cannibal districts. Jesuits, Holy Ghost Fathers, and Lazarists are working in Madagascar; Jesuits are established along the Zambesi River, and the African Missionaries of Lyons have settlements around the Gulf of Guinea, at the Cape of Good Hope, and at Dahomey, while the Oblates of Mary are in Natal. In Senegal Mother Anne-Marie Javouhey, foundress of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny -- she of whom Louis Phillipe said "Madame Javouhey c'est un grand homme" -- opened the first French schools in 1820, and set on foot the first attempts at agriculture in that region. In Egypt, French Jesuits have two colleges; the Lyons missionaries, one; the Brothers of the Christian Schools teach more than 1000 pupils; and 60 parish schools, with more than 3000 children, are under the care of French sisterhoods. French Lazarists minister to 13,000 souls in Abyssinia. The ecclesiastical province of Algeria, which in 1800 reckoned 4000 souls, had at the time of Cardinal Lavigerie's death 400,000, with 500 priests, 260 churches, and 230 schools, while Tunis, which in 1800 contained but 2000 Catholics, numbered 27,000 ministered to by 153 religious in 22 parishes. The Brothers of the Christian Schools were pioneers of the French language in Tunis, as they had been throughout the Ottoman Empire from Constantinople to Cairo, and the Congregation of the White Fathers, who sent out their first ten missionaries from Algiers on the 17th of April, 1878, towards equatorial Africa, founded, in Uganda and along Lake Tanganyika, Christian communities, one of which, in May, 1886, gave to the Faith 150 martyrs.

Side by side with this peaceful conquest of the African continent by the initiative of a French cardinal, a place of honour must be given to the wonderful part played in the colonization and development of French Guiana, since the year 1828, by Mother Javouhey, of whose efforts in Senegal we have already spoken. It was she, who under the July monarch, and at the request of the government, undertook in Guiana the work of civilizing the unfortunate negroes taken by the men-of-war from captured slave ships, and whom she eventually employed as free workmen. Her example alone would suffice to refute the slander so often repeated that the French are not a colonizing race.

Only in one part of the world -- the East -- is this vast missionary movement aided, however slightly, by the French Treasury. In the Levant a certain number of church schools received state aid as a help to the spreading of the French language, but of late years these subventions have been opposed and diminished. On 12 December, 1906, M. Dubief, in moving the Budget of Foreign Affairs, proposed to suppressed the sums voted to aid the schools conducted by religious congregations in the East. M. Pichon, minister of Foreign Affairs, promised to hasten the work of laicization, and by means of this promise he secured the continuation of the credit of 92,000 francs. It is a matter of regret that the aim of the Chambers for some years past has been to cut down the assistance given by France to these schools, and to create in the East French educational institutions of a purely secular character. M. Marcel Charlot, in 1906, and M. Aulard, in 1907, the one in the name of the State, the other in the interest of la Mission Laïque, made a critical study of our religious schools in the east, and contributed to the laicizing movement which, if successful, would mean the dissolution of France's religious clientèle in the East and a lessening of French political influence.

FRANCE AT ROME

Side by side with the part France has played in the missionary field, the diplomatic activity at Rome of the Third Republic, in its character as a protector of pious institutions, is worth noting. It tends to prove the depth, the reality, the force which underlay the old saying: Gallia Ecclesiæ Primogenita Filia.

In 1890, on the occasion of the French workingmen's pilgrimage, Count Lefebvre de Béhaine, the French ambassador, formally renewed the claims of the French Republic over the chapel of St. Petronilla, founded by Pepin the Short in the basilica of St. Peter. The principal religious establishments over which certain prerogatives were exercised by the French embassy at Rome, until its suppression in 1903, were: the church and community of chaplains of St. Louis the French, the French national church in Rome, dating back to a confraternity instituted in 1454; the pious foundation of St. Yves of the Bretons, which dates from 1455; the church of St. Nicholas of the Lorrainers, which dates from 1622; the church of St. Claudius of the Burgundians, which dates from 1652; the convent of Trinità on the Pincian Hill, which was founded by Charles VIII, in 1494, for the Friars Minor, and became, in 1828, a boarding school under the care of the French ladies of the Sacred Heart. There has also been an ancient bond between France and the Lateran Chapter, by reason of the donations made to the chapter by Louis XI and Henry IV, and the annual grant apportioned to it by Charles X, in 1845, and by Napoleon III, in 1863. Although this grant was discontinued by the republic in 1871, the Lateran Chapter until the suppression of the Embassy of the Holy See (1904) always kept up official relations with the French ambassador whom, on the 1st of January of each year, it charged with a special message of greeting to the President of the Republic. Lastly, since 1230 there has always been a French auditor of the Rota. In 1472 Sixtus IV formally recognized this to be the right of the French nation. The allowance made by France to the auditor was discontinued in 1882, but the office has survived, and the reorganization of the tribunal of the Rota made by Pope Pius X (September and October 1908) was followed by the appointment of a French auditor.

ECCLESIASTICAL DIVISIONS

In 1780 France, with the exception of Venaissin, which belonged immediately to the pope, was divided into 135 dioceses; eighteen archbishoprics or ecclesiastical provinces with 106 suffragan sees and eleven sees depending on foreign metropolitans. The latter eleven sees were: Strasburg, suffragan of Mainz; St-Dié, Nancy, Metz, Toul, Verdun, suffragans of Trier; and five in Corsica, suffragans of Genoa or of Pisa. The eighteen archiepiscopal sees were: Aix, Albe, Aries, Auch, Besonçon, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Cambrai, Embrun, Lyons, Narbonne, Paris, Reims, Rouen, Sens, Toulouse, Tours, Vienne. In 1791 the constituent assembly suppressed the 135 dioceses, and created ten metropolitan sees with one suffragan diocese in each department. The Concordat of 1851 set up fifty bishoprics and ten archbishoprics; the Concordat of 1817 made a fresh arrangement, which was realized in 1822 and 1823 by the creation of new bishoprics. France and its colonies are presently divided in to ninety diocese, of which eighteen are metropolitan and seventy-two suffragan, as follows:

• Marseilles (Metropolitan) -- Fréjus, Digne, Gap, Nice, Ajaccio. (Suffragans)
• Albi -- Rodez, Cahors, Mende, Perpignan.
• Algiers -- Constantine, Oran.
• Auch -- Aire, Tarbes, Bayonne.
• Avignon -- Nimes, Valence, Viviers, Montpellier.
• Besançon -- Verdun, Belley, St-Dié, Nancy.
• Bordeaux -- Agen, Angoulême, Poitiers, Périgueux, La Rochelle, Luçon, La Basse-Terre (Guadaloupe, W. I.), Réunion (Indian Ocean), Fort-de-France, Martinique, W. I.).
• Bourges -- Clermont, Limoges, Le Puy, Tulle, St-Flour.
• Cambrai -- Arras.
• Chambér -- yAnnecy, Tarentaise, Maurienne.
• Lyons -- Autun, Langres, Dijon, St-Claude, Grenoble.
• Paris -- Chartres, Meaux, Orléans, Blois, Versailles.
• Reims -- Soissons, Châlons-sur-Marne, Beauvais, Amiens.
• Rennes -- Quimper, Vannes, St-Brieuc.
• Rouen -- Bayeux, âvreux, Séez, Coutances.
• Sens -- Troyes, Nevers, Moulins.
• Toulouse -- Montauban, Pamiers, Carcassonne.
• Tours -- Le Mans, Angers, Nantes, Laval.

THE THIRD REPUBLIC AND THE CHURCH IN FRANCE

The policy known as anticlerical, inaugurated by Gambetta in his speech at Romans, 18 September, 1878, containing the famous catchword "Le cléricalisme, c'est l'ennemi". was due to the influence of the Masonic lodges, which ever since that date have shown their hatred even of the very idea of God. If one carefully follows up the series of aspirations uttered at the Masonic meetings, there will surely be found the first germ of the successive laws which have been framed against the Church. To justify its action before the people, the Government has asserted that the sympathies of a great number of Catholics, including the many of the clergy, were for the monarchical parties. This policy also presented itself as a retaliation for the attempt of the 16th of May, 1877, by which the monarchists had tried to impede in France the progressive actions of the liberals (la Gauche) and of the democratic spirit. Its first embodiments were, in 1879, the exclusion of the priests from the administrative committees of hospitals and of boards of charity; in 1880, certain measures directed against the religious congregations; from 1880 to 1890, the substitution of lay women for nuns in many hospitals; and, in 1882 and 1886, the "School Laws" (lois scolaires) which will later on be discussed in detail.

The Concordat continued to govern the relations of Church and State, but in 1881, the method of stoppage of salary (suppression de traitement) began to be employed against priests whose political attitude was unsatisfactory to the Government, and the Law of 1893, which subjected the financial administration of church property to the same rules as civil establishments, occasioned lively concern among the clergy. As early as March, 1888, Leo XIII had written to President Grévy, complaining of the anti-religious bitterness, and expressing a hope that the eldest daughter of the Church would find it possible to abandon this struggle if she would not forfeit that unity and homogeneity among her citizens which had been the source of her own peculiar greatness, and thus oblige history to proclaim that one inconsiderate day's work had destroyed in France the magnificent achievement of the ages. Jules Grévy replied that the religious feeling complained of way the outcome mainly of the hostile attitude of a section of the clergy to the Republic. Some years later (12 November, 1890), Cardinal Lavigerie, returning from Rome, and inspired by Leo XIII, delivered a speech in the presence of all the authorities, military and civil, of Algeria, in which he said: "When the will of a people as to the form of its government has been clearly affirmed, and when, to snatch a people from the abysses which threatens it, unreserved adhesion to this political form is necessary, then the moment has come to declare the test completed, and it only remains to make all those sacrifices which conscience and honour permit us, and command us, to make for the good of our country." This speech, which caused a great commotion, was followed by a letter of Cardinal Rampolla, Secretary of State to Leo XIII, addressed to the Bishop of St-Flour, in which the cardinal exhorted Catholics to come forward and take part in public affairs, thus entering upon the readiest and surest path to the attainment of that noble aim, the good of religion and the salvation of souls. Lastly, a Brief of Leo XIII to Cardinal Lavigerie, in the early part of the year 1891, assured him that his zeal and activity answered perfectly to the needs of the age and the pope's expectations.

From these utterances dates in France the policy known as "Raillement", and as "Leo's Republican Policy". At once the Archbishops of Tours, Cambrai, the Bishops of Bayeux, Langres, Digne, Bayonne, and Grenoble declared their adhesion to the "Algiers Programme", and the Monarchical press accused them of "kissing the Republic feet of their executioners". On 16 January, 1892, a collective letter was published by the five French cardinals, enumerating all the acts of oppression sanctioned by the Republic against the Church, and concluding, in conformity with the wish of Rome, by announcing the following programme: Frank and loyal acceptance of political institutions; respect for the laws of the country whenever they do not clash with conscientious obligations; respect for the representatives of authority, combined with steady resistance to all encroachments on the spiritual domain.

Within a month the seventy-five bishops subscribed to the above programme, and in the atmosphere thus prepared, the voice of Pope Leo once more spoke out. In the Encyclical "Inter innumeras sollicitudines", dated 10 February, 1892, Leo XIII besought Catholics not to judge the Republic by the irreligious character of its government, and explained that a distinction must be drawn between the form of government, which ought to be accepted, and its laws, which ought to be improved. Thus was the policy of rallying to the Republic precisely stated, as recommended to the Catholics of France, and expounded in the brochures, in Paris, of Cardinal Perraud, and at Rome, of Fr. Brandi, editor of the "Civiltà Cattolica". Anticlericalists and Monarchists were alarmed. The Monarchists protested against the interference of the pope in French politics, and the anticlericals declared that the Republic had not room for "Roman Republicans". Both parties asserted that it was impossible to distinguish between the Republican form of government and the Republican laws. A trifling incident, arising out of a visit paid by some French pilgrims to the Parthenon in Rome, which contains the tomb of Victor Emmanuel, called forth from M. Falliéres, Minister of Justice, a circular against pilgrimages (October, 1891), and occasioned a lively debate in the French Chamber on the separation of Church and State. But in spite of these outbreaks of Anticlericalism, the political horizons, especially after the Encyclical of February, 1892, became more serene. The policy of combining Republican forces by a fusion of Moderates and Radicals to support a common programme of Republican concentration, which programme was incessantly developing new anticlerical measures as concessions to the Radicals -- gradually went out of fashion. After the October elections, in 1893, for the first time in many long years, a homogeneous ministry was formed, one ministry composed exclusively of Moderate Republicans, and known as the Casimir Périer-Spuller Ministry. On 3 March, 1894, in a discussion in the Chamber on the prohibition of religious emblems by the socialist Mayor of Saint-Denis, Spuller, the minister of Public Worship, declared that it was time to take a stand against all fanaticisms whatsoever -- against all sectaries, regardless of the particular sect to which they might belong -- and that the Chamber could rely at once of the vigilance of the Government to uphold the rights of the State, and on the new spirit (esprit nouveau) which animated the Government, and tended to reconcile all citizens and bring back all Frenchmen to the principles of common sense and justice, and of the charity necessary for every society that wishes to survive. Thus it seemed that there would be developing, side by side with the policy of ralliement practised by the Church, a similar conciliatory policy on the part of the State.

A letter from Cardinal Rampolla, dated 30 January, 1895, to M. Auguste Roussel, formerly an editor of the "Univers", but who had become editor-in-chief of the "Vérité", found fault with the latter periodical for stirring up feeling against the Republic, fostering in the mind of its readers the conviction that it was idle to hope for religious peace from such a form of government, creating an atmosphere of distrust and discouragement, and thwarting the movement toward general good-feeling which the Holy See desired, especially in light of the elections. This letter created a great sensation, and the newspaper polemics contrasted the Catholics of the "Univers" and the "Croix", docile toward Leo XIII, with the refractory Catholics of the "Vérité". On 5 February, 1896, Félix Faure wrote as follows to Pope Leo: "The President of the Republic cannot forget the generous motives which prompted the advice given by Your Holiness to the Catholics of France, encouraging them to accept loyally the government of their country. Your Holiness regrets that these appeals for harmony and peace have not been everywhere listened to; and we join in those regrets. That enlightened advice given to the opponents of the Republic, for whose consciences the head of the Church is 'all-powerful', ought to have been followed by all. Nevertheless, we note at the present time, with regret, that there are men who, under the cloak of religion, foment a policy of discord and of strife. It would, however, be unjust not to recognize that, while the salutary instructions of Your Holiness have not produced all the effects that might have been expected of them, very many loyal Catholics have bowed before them. At the same time, this manifestation of goodwill produced among those Republicans who were most firmly attached to the rights of the civil power a spirit of conciliation which has largely contributed to mitigate the conflict of passions which saddened us."

This letter, published for the first time at the end of the year 1905, in the "White Book" of the Holy See, places in clear relief the relations existing between the Church and the Republic four years after the encyclical of February, 1892, and three months before the formation of the Méline Ministry, which was to lead the Republic towards even greater moderation. The Méline Ministry (1896-98) secured for Catholics for two years a certain amelioration of their lot. But the division among Catholics persisted, and this division, which arose from their indocility to Leo XIII, was the principal cause of their defeat in the elections of 1898, when the Méline Ministry came to an end. The old Anticlerical Republican party came once more into power; the Dreyfus affair, a purely judicial matter around which political factions grew up, was made the pretext on the morrow of the death of President Faure (16 February, 1899) for beginning a formidable antimiltarist, and anticlerical agitation, which led to the formation of the Waldeck-Rousseau and the Combes Ministries.

The Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry (1899-1902) passed fresh legislation against the congregations (it will be found in detail at the end of this article) and brought France to the verge of a breach with Rome over the question of the Nobis nominavit. These two words, which occurred in episcopal Bulls, signified that the priest chosen by the State to fill a bishopric had been designated and presented to the Holy See. On 13 June, 1901, when Bulls were required for the bishops of Carcassonne and Annecy, the Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry proposed that the word Nobis should be omitted, in order to affirm more clearly the State's right of nomination. The Combes Ministry (1902-05) continued the dispute over this matter, and on 22 November, 1903, the Holy See, in order to avoid a breach with France, agreed to omit the obnoxious word, on condition that, in future, the President of the Republic should demand the canonical institution of bishops by letters patent, containing the words, We name him, and present him to Your Holiness. In spite of this concession by the Holy See, M. Combs set himself the task of planning the separation of Church and State. He felt that public opinion was not yet ripe for this stroke, and all his efforts were directed to making separation inevitable. The laicization of the naval and military hospitals (1903-04), the order prohibiting soldiers to frequent Catholic clubs (9 February, 1904); the vote of the Chamber (14 February, 1904) in favour of the motion to repeal the Falloux Law were episodes less serious than the succession of calculated acts by which the breach with Rome was being approached.

Three quarrels succeeded one another.

1. In regard to vacant sees, Combe's policy was to demand canonical institution for the candidate of his choice without previously consulting Rome. The Holy See refused its consent in the cases of the bishoprics of Maurienne, Bayonne, Ajaccio, and Vannes, and accepted M. Combe's candidate for Nevers. "All or none", replied M. Combes, on 19 March, 1904, to the the nuncio, Mgr Lorenzelli; and all the sees remained vacant.
2. On 25 March, 1904, the chamber agreed, by 502 votes against 12, to allocate a sum of money to defray the expenses of a visit by M. Loubet, President of the Republic, to Rome. M. Loubet was thus the first head of a Catholic State to pay a visit to the King of Italy in Rome. A note from Cardinal Rampolla to M. Nisard, the French Ambassador, dated 1 June, 1903, and a dispatch from the cardinal to the nuncio, Lorenzelli, dated 8 June, had explained the reasons why such a visit would be considered a grave affront to the Holy See. On 28 April, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val sent a protest to M. Nisard against M. Loubet's visit to Rome. On 6 May, M. Nisard handed to Cardinal Merry del Val a diplomatic note in which the French government objected to the reasons given by the Holy See and to the manner in which they were presented. At the same time, to prevent the heads of other Catholic counties from following M. Loubet's example, the Holy See sent a diplomatic note to all the powers in which it was explained that if, in spite of this visit, the nuncio to France had not been recalled, it was only for very grave reasons of an order and nature altogether special. By an indiscretion, which has been attributed to the Government of the Principality of Monaco, "L'Humanité", a newspaper belonging to the socialist deputy, Jaurès, published this note on 17 May. On 20 May, M. Nisard sought an explanation from Cardinal Merry del Val; on 21 May was granted leave of absence by his Government; and on 28 May, in the Chamber, the Government gave it to be understood that M. Nisard's departure from Rome had a significance much more serious than that of a simple leave of absence.
3. Having learned of a letter from Cardinal Serafino Vannutelli (17 May, 1904) inviting Monsignor Geay, Bishop of Laval, in the name of the Holy Office, to resign his see, and of a letter in which Monsignor Lorenzelli, the papal nuncio, requested Monsignor Le Nordez, Bishop of Dijon, to desist from holding ordinations until further orders, the French Government caused its chargé d'affaires at Rome, M. Robert de Courcel, to inquire into the matter. When on 9 July, 1904, Cardinal Merry del Val cited Mgr Le Nordez to appear at Rome within fifteen days, under pain of suspension, M. Robert de Courcel announced to the cardinal that, unless this letter to Mgr Le Nordez was withdrawn, diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See would cease; and on 30 July, 1904, a note handed by M. Robert de Courcel to Cardinal Merry del Val announced that France had decided to put an end to these relations.

In this way the breach was effected without any formal denunciation of the Concordat. On 10 February, 1905, the Chamber declared that "the attitude of the Vatican" had rendered the separation of Church and State inevitable. The "Osservatore Romano" replied that this was an "historical lie". The discussions in the chamber lasted from 21 March to 3 July, and in the Senate from 9 November to 6 December, and on 11 December 1905, the separation Law was gazetted in the "Journal Officiel".

Laws Affecting the Congregations

The Monarchy had taken fiscal measures against property held in mortmain ("the dead hand") but the first rigorous enactments against religious congregations date from the Revolution. The Law of 13 February, 1790, declared that monastic vows were no longer recognized, and that the orders and congregations in which such vows were made were forever suppressed. The Concordat itself was silent as to congregations; but the Eleventh of the Organic articles implicitly prohibited them, declaring that all ecclesiastical establishments except chapters and seminaries were suppressed. Two years later a decree, dated 3 Messidor, Year XII, suppressing certain congregations which had come into existence in spite of the law, added a provision that the civil authority could, by decree, formally authorize such associations after having taken cognizance of their statutes. The Lazarists, the Missions Estrangères, the Friars of the Holy Ghost, and the Sulpicians were, in virtue of this law, authorized by decree in 1804; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, in 1808. Under the restoration, the Chamber of Peers refused the king the right of creating congregations by royal warrant (par ordonnace), asserting that for each particular re-establishment of a congregation a law was necessary.

Such was the principle which ruled until the year 1901; but the applications of that principle varied with the changes of government. Under the Second Empire it was admitted in practice that a simple administrative authorization was sufficient to legalize a congregation of women, provided that such congregation adopted the statutes of a congregation previously authorized. Under the Third Republic, it was under the pretext of a strict enforcement of the law that, in 1880, the Society of Jesus was dissolved, and the other congregations were ordered to apply for authorization with three months. The protests of the Catholics, and the criticisms which became general on the archaic character of the laws upon which these decrees were based had this much effect, that, after a brutal application of the decrees to most of the congregations of men, the government dare not apply them to the unauthorized congregations of women; they gradually became a dead letter; and little by little the congregations of men were re-formed in the name of individual liberty. But in this condition of affairs, only the formally authorized congregations could be considered as "moral persons" before the law. Since 1849 the religious congregations had been paying into the treasury a "mortmain tax" (taxe des biens de mainmorte) in lieu of the succession duties which the properties of a "moral person" escapes. On the twofold consideration that this tax did not touch personal estate and that property held in unacknowledged mortmain evaded it, the Third republic passed the following enactments.

• A law of increment (droit d'accroissement) so called because it was intended to reach that increase in the individual interest of each surviving member in the common estate which should accrue upon the decease of a fellow-member. This duty is represented by a composition tax (taxe abonnement) assessed at the rate of 0.3 percent on the market value of the real and person estate held by the association. On real estate held by associations not subject to the mortmain law, the rate is 0.4 percent.
• A tax of four percent on the revenue of property owned or occupied by congregations, this revenue being assumed equal to one-twentieth of the gross value of the property.

On 1 January, 1901, France numbered 19,424 establishments of religious congregations, with 159,628 members. Of these establishments, 3126 belonged to congregations of men; 16,298 to congregations of women (2870 of the latter being regularly authorized, and 13,428 unrecognized). The members of the male congregations number 30,136, of whom 23,327 belonged to teaching institutes, 552 served in hospitals, and 7277 followed the contemplative vocation [sic]. The value of real property being taxed as held by congregations amounted to 463,715,146 francs (about $92,000,000 or between £18,000,000 and £19,000,000) and in this estimate was included all property devoted by the religious to benevolent and educational purposes. But the Department of Domains, in drawing up its statistical report (which statistics were with justice questioned), explained that, in addition to the real property taxed as belonging to congregations, account should be taken of the real property occupied by them through the complaisance of lay corporations or proprietors whom the State declared to be mere intermediaries (personnes interposées), and the department placed the combined value of these two classes of property at 1,071,775,260 francs. To this unfair estimate may be traced the popular notion -- which was cleverly exploited by certain political parties -- about le milliard des congrégations.

The law of associations, as of 1 July, 1901, provided that no congregation, whether of men or of women, could be formed without a legislative authorizing act, which act should determine the function of such congregation. Thus ended the regime of tolerance to congregations of women which had been inaugurated by the Empire. Congregations previously authorized and those which should subsequently obtain authorization had, according to this law, the status of "moral persons", but this status held them to an obligation and kept them perpetually under a threat. On the one hand, it was enacted that they must each year draw up a list of their members, an inventory of their possessions, and a statement of their receipts and expenses, and must present these documents to the prefectoral authority upon demand. On the other hand, it was provided that, to deprive any congregation of its authorization, nothing more was required than an ordinary decree of the Council of Ministers. And lastly, these authorized congregations could found "new establishments" only in virtue of a decree of the Council of State, and the Council of State, in interpreting the law, considers that there is a "new establishment" when laymen in cooperation with one or more members of a congregation set up a school or a hospital. If the master of an industrial enterprise rewards a sister for teaching or caring for the children of this workmen, the law considers that there is a new establishment, for which an authorization of the Council of State is necessary. As for the unauthorized Congregations, the Law of 1901 declared them dissolved, allowing them three months to apply for authorization. Congregations which should re-form after dissolution, or which should in the future be formed without authorization were, by the same law, made liable to pains and penalties (fines of from 16 to 5000 francs; terms of imprisonment of from 6 days to one year); double penalties were to be inflicted on founders and administrators, and the act of providing premises for, and thus abetting, the operation of such congregations was, in 1902, declared an offense entailing the same penalties. Moreover, the law made every member of an unauthorized religious congregation incapable of directing any teaching establishment, or of teaching in one, under pain of fine or imprisonment, and this offense might entail the closing of the establishment. The Government found itself face-to-face with 17,000 unauthorized congregations; it decided to dissolve all of them without exception -- educational establishments, industrial establishments, contemplative establishments -- though charitable establishments were tolerated provisionally.

From another point of view the law was singularly arbitrary and juridically defective; it struck at every member of a religious congregation who was not secularized, but it did not precisely state what constitutes secularization. Is it sufficient, for secularization to be effective and sincere, that the religious -- or, to employ the current French term, the congréganiste -- should be absolved from his vows and should re-enter the diocese from which he originally came? The prevalent legal opinion does not admit this; it admits the right of the courts to ascertain whether other elements of fact do not result in a virtual persistence of the congregation. Thus the courts may regard as religious persons who, in the eyes of the Church, are no longer such; and the fact of being a congréganiste, which fact constitutes an offense, is not a precise, material fact defined and limited by the letter of the enactment; it is a point upon which the interpretation of the courts remains the sovereign authority.

The principles of liquidation were as follows: property belonging to congréganistes before their entrance to the congregation, or acquired since that time, whether by succession independent of testamentary provision (ab intestat) or by legacy in direct line, was to be restored to them. Gifts and bequests made otherwise than in direct line could not legally be claimed by the former congréganistes unless they established the point that they had not been intermediaries (personnes interposées). Benefactions to congregations could be reclaimed by benefactors or their heirs within a term of six months. After these deductions made by the congréganistes and their benefactors, the residue of the estate of the congregation was to be subject to the disposition of the courts. The law refused to recognize that property created by the labour or thrift of the congréganistes necessarily ought to be distributed among them, and it was held sufficient that, by an administrative ruling of 16 August, 1901, provision was made for allowances to former congréganistes who had no means of subsistence or who should establish the fact of having by their labour contributed to the acquisition of the property under liquidation.

The juridical liquidation of the congregational estates had some serious consequences. The Chamber soon perceived that too often the liquidators intentionally complicated the business with which they were charged (it being in their interest to multiple lawsuits the expense of which could not in any case fall upon them) and that the personal profits derived by the liquidators from these operations were exorbitant. In confiding so delicate a business to irresponsible functionaries, the framer of the Law of 1901 had committed a grave error of judgment. On 31 December, 1907, the Senate resolved to nominate a commission of inquiry to examine the accounts of the liquidators, and the report of this commission, published in early September, 1908, revealed enormous irregularities. It was to satisfy these belated misgivings, that the Government, in February, 1908, introduced a bill substituting for the irresponsible judicial liquidation an administrative liquidation under the control of the prefects. But this provision is to apply only to the congregations which shall be dissolved hereafter; what has happened in the past seven years is irreparable, and when Catholic publicists speak of "the evaporation of the famous milliard of the congregations" the champions of the Law of 1901 are painfully embarrassed.

The Laicization of Primary Instruction

(a) As to the Matter of Instruction

The Law of 28 March, 1882, which made primary instruction obligatory, gratuitous, and secular (laïque), intentionally omitted religious instruction from the curriculum of the public school, and provided one free day every week, besides Sunday, to allow the children, if their parents saw fit, to receive religious instruction; but this instruction was to be given outside of the school buildings. Thus the priest had no right to enter the schools, even outside of class hours, to hold catechism. The school regulations of 18 January, 1887, laid it down that the children could be sent to church for catechism or religious exercises only outside of class hours, and that teachers were not bound either to take them to church or to watch over their behaviour while there. It was added that during the week preceding the First Communion teachers were to allow pupils to leave the school when their religious duties called them to church. The spirit of the Law of 1882 implied that religious emblems should be excluded from the schools, but out of regard for the religious feelings of the people in those neighbourhoods, the prefects allowed the crucifixes to remain in a certain number of schools; they took care, however, that no religious emblems should be placed in any of the newly erected school buildings. This temporizing policy was continued by the ministerial order or 9 April, 1903, but in 1906 and 1907 the administration at last called for the definitive disappearance of the crucifix from all public schools.

The Law of 1882 is silent as to the teaching, in the public schools, of the students' duties toward God. The Senate, after a speech by Jules Ferry, refused to entertain the proposal of Jules Simon, that these duties should be mentioned in the law; but the Board of Education (Conseil Supérieur de l'Instruction Publique), acting on a recommendation of Paul Janet, the Spiritualist philosopher, inserted in the executive instructions, with which it supplemented the text of the law, a recommendation that the teacher should admonish the pupils not to use the name of God lightly, to respect the idea of God, and to obey the laws of God as revealed by conscience and reason. However, in the public schools dependent on the municipality of Paris, the antispiritualist tendency became so violent that, after 1882, the new edition of certain school books expunged, even where they occurred in selected specimens of literature, the words God, Providence, Creator. These early manifestations led Catholics to declare that the laic and neutral school was really a Godless school. In the controversy which arose, some quotations from the public school textbooks became famous. For instance, la Fontaine's lines

were made to read "que l'on lui prête vie". And while politicians were deprecating the assertion that the schools were Godless, the Masonic conventicles and the professional articles written by certain state pedagogues were explaining that the notion of God must eventually disappear in the school. In practice, the chapter of duties toward God was one which very few teachers touched upon. In 1894, M. Divinat, afterwards director of the normal school of the department of the Seine, wrote: "To teach God, it is necessary to believe in God. Now how are we to find in these days teachers whose souls are sincerely and profoundly religious? It may be affirmed without any exaggeration that, since 1882, the lay public school has been very nearly the Godless school."

This frank and unimpeachable testimony, justifying, as it does, all the sad predictions of the Catholics, has been corroborated by the experience of the last fifteen years. With the cry, Laïciser la laïque, a certain number of teachers have carried on an active campaign for the formal elimination of the idea of God, as a remnant of "Clericalism", from the school programme. The powerful organization known as the "Ligue de l'Enseignement", whose Masonic affinities are indisputable, has supported this movement. For the exponents of the tendency, to be laïque, one must be the enemy of all rational metaphysics -- to be laïque, one must be an atheist.

The very idea of neutrality in education, to which anti-religious teachers have not always consistently adhered, is nowadays out of favour with many members of the pedagogical profession. In 1904, the teachers of the Department of the Seine advocated, almost unanimously, in place of "denominational neutrality" (neutralité confessionelle), which they said was a lie (un mensonge), the establishment of a "critical teaching" (enseignement critique), which, in the name of science, should abandon all reserves in regard to denominational susceptibilities. But that neutrality was something very closely resembling a lie, is just what Catholic orators were saying in 1882, and thus the evolution of the primary school, and these fits of candour in which the very truth of the matter is confessed, justify, after a quarter of a century, the fears expressed by Catholics at the very outset. It is to be feared, moreover, that this substitution of critical for neutral teaching will very soon issue in the introduction, even in the primary schools, of lessons on the history of religions which shall serve as weapons against Christian revelation; such a step is already being advocated by the Freemasons and by certain groups of unbelieving savants, and herein lies one of the greatest perils of to-morrow. Bills introduced by MM. Briand and Doumergue impose heavy penalties on fathers whose children refuse to make use of the irreligious books given them by their teachers, and render it impossible for parents to prosecute teachers whose immoral and irreligious instruction may give them reason for complaint. These bills, which are soon to be discussed, are now (June, 1909) producing a very painful impression.

(b) Laicization of the Teaching Staff

The Law of 30 October, 1886, drawn and advocated by Renè Goblet, called for the laicization of the teaching staff in the public schools. In the schools for boys this laicization has been an accomplished fact since 1891, since which date no Brother of the Christian Schools has acted either as principal or as teacher in public primary instruction. The difficulty of forming a body of female lay teachers impeded the process of laicizing the public schools for girls, but this, too, has been complete since 1906, except in some few communes, where it is to be effected before the year 1913.

Denominational Primary Instruction

From the eleventh century onwards, history shows unmistakable traces, in most provinces of France, of small schools founded by the Church, such as were recommended by Charlemagne's capitulary in the year 789. The ever-increasing number of schools, writes Guibert de Nogent in the twelfth century, makes access to them easy for the humblest. The seventeenth century saw the foundation of a certain number of teaching institutes; the Ursulines, who between the year 1602 and the Revolution, founded 289 houses, and who numbered 9000 members in 1792; the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul founded in 1630, recognized in 1657; the Congregation of Notre-Dame, founded by St. Peter Fourier, recognized in 1622; the Brothers of the Christian Schools, called, in the eighteenth century, Brothers of Saint-Yon, founded by St. John the Baptist de la Salle, and who had 123 classes in 1719, when their founder died, and 550 classes in 1789. In the last twenty years a large number of monographs which have been given restricted publication in the provinces, have presented historical evidence of the care which the Church was devoting to primary education during the period immediately preceding the Revolution. At the beginning of the Consulate, Fourcroy, anti-religious as he was, alarmed, to use his own words, at the "almost total ineffectiveness of the primary schools" (nullité presque totale), recommended it as a useful expedient, to confide a portion of the primary teaching to the clergy and to revive "the Institute of the Brothers, which had formerly been of the greatest service". In 1805, the Brothers, having re-established a mother-house at Lyons, were solicited to furnish teachers in thirty-six towns. The Government of the First Empire authorized in ten years 880 communities or establishments of teaching sisters; the Restoration, less generous, authorized only 599; the Monarchy of July only 389. Until 1833 these congregations could exercise their functions only in schools controlled by the State, for the University would allow no infringement of its monopoly. The magnificent tribute to the educational activity of the clergy which Guizot uttered during the debates on the Law of 1833 was endorsed by the law itself which, partially suppressing the monopoly of the University, established the principal of free primary teaching. The Law of 25 March, 1850, held "letters of obedience" given by religious associations to their members, to be equivalent to the diplomas given by the State, which legally qualified their recipients to be teachers. Between 1852 and 1860 the Empire issued 884 decrees recognizing congregations or local establishments of teaching sisters; from 1861 to 1869 -- the period of change which followed the Italian war -- while Duruy was Minister of Public Instruction, only 77 of these decrees were issued.

The Law of 28 March, 1882, deprived the "letters of obedience" of all their value by providing that every teacher must hold a diploma (brevet) from one of the government jurys, or examining boards. The congrégationistes (see above) submitted to this formality. With this exception, the Law upheld the liberty of private teaching. The Law of 1886 authorized mayors and school inspectors (inspecteurs d'académie) to oppose the opening of any private school on moral or hygienic grounds; in such cases the litigation was taken before one of the university councils (conseils universitaires), in which the private educational establishments were represented by elected delegates, and the council gave a decision. These councils could also take disciplinary action against private teachers, in the form of censure or suspension of teaching licence. The masters and mistresses of private schools might give religious instruction in their schools, and were left free in the choice of methods, programs, and books, but the state authority, after consultation with the Council of Public Instruction (Conseil Supérieur de l'Instruction Publique), might prohibit the introduction and use of books judged contrary to morality, the Constitution, of the law. An order of the Council of State, dated 29 July, 1888, declared that neither departments nor communes had a legal right to grant appropriations, on their respective local budgets, to private schools; thus the establishment and support of these schools has fallen on Catholic charity exclusively. The communes can only give assistance to poor pupils in private schools as individuals.

A first, very serious, attack on the principal of freedom of teaching was made by the Law of 7 July, 1904, which formally declared that "teaching of every grade and every kind is forbidden in France to the congregations". The members of the authorized congregations, equally with the rest, fell under the disability thus created. Every Brother, every religious woman, who wished to continue the work of teaching was forthwith compelled to be secularized, and the courts remained, and still remain, competent to contest the legal value of such secularizations. A clause, the legal effect of which was transitory, was introduced empowering the Government, according to the needs of particular localities, to authorize for one or more years the continuance of congréganiste schools; but M. Combes immediately closed 14,404 out of 16,904 such schools, and it is decreed that in 1910 the last of the congréganiste schools shall have disappeared.

From time to time the Ministry publishes a list of congréganiste schools which must be closed definitely by the end of the school year, and thus the Government in power is the sole arbiter to accord or to refuse them a few last years of existence. The bishops are seeking to maintain primary Catholic education or to reorganize it with secular or lay teachers. In some diocese a movement is on foot for the acquisition of teaching diplomas for the seminarists. Already in twenty-four diocese there are diocesan organizations for free teaching -- diocesan committees composed of ecclesiastics and laymen, which maintain a strict control of all the private schools in their diocese. These measures have been imperatively demanded in order to repair the losses suffered by free primary education, the number of pupils having fallen, according to statistics complied in 1907 by M. Keller, from 1,600,000 to 1,000,000.

Denominational Secondary Education

Statistics published by the Education Commission (Commission d'Enseignement) show that, out of a total of 162,110 pupils in the secondary schools for the year 1898, 50,793 belonged the the lycées, 33,949 to the colleges, 9725 to private establishments taught by laymen, and 67,643 to private establishments taught by ecclesiastics. To these figures must be added 23,497 boys in the petits séminaires. Thus, in the aggregate, the State was giving primary education to 84,742 pupils; the Church to 91,140.

The fundamental law on secondary education is still the Falloux Law of 15 March, 1850. Any Frenchman over twenty-five years of age, having the degree of Bachelor, or a special diploma of qualification (brevet de capacité), may, after passing a term of five years in a teaching establishment, open a house of secondary education, subject to objections on moral or hygienic grounds, of which grounds the university councils are the judges. In contrast with the case of private primary education, Catholic establishments of secondary education may be subsidized by the communes or the departments.

A first serious stroke at the liberty of secondary education was delivered by the Law of 7 July, 1904, depriving the congréganistes of the right of teaching. Other projects, which the Government has already induced the Senate to accept, are now pending and these would exact much more rigorous conditions as to pedagogic qualifications on the part of Catholic secondary school teachers of either sex; the Catholic establishments would be subject to a compulsory inspection, bearing, as in the case of primary education, upon the conformity of the teaching with the Constitution and the law; the Government would reserve the right to close the establishment by decree. It may be foreseen in the course of the year 1909 all or part of these proposals will become law, and the effects will be disastrous, first, to Catholic girls' schools, where many of the teachers, whether laywomen or secularized congréganistes, will not immediately be in possession of the requisite diplomas. Such schools will thus be placed at a further disadvantage with the lycées, colleges, and courses for young women organized by the State under the Law of 21 December, 1880, numbering as many as 104, with 8300 pupils, in 1883, and in 1906, numbering 171, with 32,500 pupils. Secondly, for the petits séminaires the results will be still more disastrous.

These institutions have hitherto existed under a particular statute, which it will be necessary here to consider. "Secondary ecclesiastical schools", as the petits séminaires were then called, were made by the decrees of 9 April, 1809, and 15 November, 1811, dependent on the University. There was to be only one secondary ecclesiastical school in each department, and its course was to be that of the lycée, or college of the state. A warrant of Louis XVIII, dated 5 October, 1814, allowed a second petit séminaires in each department, subject to the authorization of the head (grand maître) of the University of France; it also gave permission for these institutions to be established in country districts, that the pupils should be obliged to assume the ecclesiastical habit after two years of study, and that the teachers should be directly dependent in the bishops. The circular of 4 July, 1816, forbade the petits séminaires to receive externs, and this prohibition was confirmed by the ordinance of June, 1828, which limited the number of their pupils to 20,000. In this way the Government wished the petits séminaires to be reserved exclusively for the education of future priests, and to be kept from competing with the University in any sense whatever, and upon these conditions it exempted them from taxation and from the control of the University, and granted them the rights of legal personality. The ordinances of 1828 were never formally abrogated, but in practice, since 1850, a certain number of petits séminaires, retaining certain privileges and immunities in recognition of their special mission, have received pupils in preparation not only for the priesthood, but also for a great variety of careers.

Legislative projects, the passage of which is now imminent, will be a source of at least temporary embarrassment to the petits séminaires, a certain number of which -- those, namely, which were diocesan institutions -- have disappeared in consequence of the Law of Separation. Statistics show that in 1906, Catholic secondary education possessed 104 fewer colleges, and 22,223 fewer pupils than in 1898, and that the number of pupils in petits séminaires had in eight years decreased by 8711.

Denominational Higher Education

Until 1882 the State supported five faculties of theology: at Paris, Bordeaux, Aix, Rouen, and Lyons. These faculties had no regular pupils, but only attendants at the lectures delivered by their professors; the Church attached no canonical value to the degrees; the state did not make these decrees a condition for any ecclesiastical appointment. The faculties themselves were suppressed by the Ferry Ministry.

The Protestants still had two faculties of theology maintained by the State; that of Paris, for Calvinists and Lutherans, and that of Montauban, for Calvinists exclusively. The separation Law of 1905 left these two faculties to be supported by the Protestants, and once detached from the University organizations, they have become free theological schools.

The university monopoly, abolished as to primary education by the Law of 1833, and as to secondary education by the law of 1850, was also abolished for higher education by the Law of 12 July, 1875, which permitted any Frenchman, subject to certain conditions, to create establishments of higher education. In the period between 1875 and 1907 the Institut Catholique de Paris admitted twenty-nine doctors of theology, thirteen of canon law, eight of scholastic philosophy, one hundred and ninety-two of law, thirty-two of literature, ten of science. The first three of these degrees have been gained by candidates under tests of the institute itself; the others from state boards (jurys). The institute is preparing to set up a medical course and one in the history of religion. The Institut Catholique de Lille has connected itself with a school of higher industrial and commercial instruction (see Baunard, Louis); the Institut Catholique d'Angers, one of agriculture. The Institut Catholique de Toulouse has but one faculty, that of theology; it is organizing lectures for students of literature and of sciences who are following the courses of the state faculties.

Laws Affecting the Applications and Effects of Religion in Civil Life

(a) The Sunday Rest

The Revolution had abolished all institutions which formerly existed in connection with the Sunday rest and had substituted the décadi (see above) for the Sunday. Under the Restoration the Law of 18 November, 1814, forbade all "exterior" labour on Sunday; a tradesman might not open his shop; by the letter of the law, he might work and cause others to work in his closed shop. What the Restoration really aimed at was a public token of obedience to the precepts of religion. The Law of 12 July, 1880, on the contrary, permitted work on Sunday. The evil social effects of this law were soon perceived. Subtle discussions arose in the Chambers: should the weekly rest, which the labour organizations demanded, be a day fixed by legislation, or should it be Sunday? It was for some time feared that such a legislative prescription would look like a concession to denominationalism, but the decision of the Committee on Labour (conseil supêrieur du travail) and of many labour unions was explicit in favour of Sunday. On 10 July, 1906, a law was passed finally establishing Sunday as the weekly day of rest, and providing, moreover, numerous restrictions and exceptions, the details of which were to be arranged by administrative regulations. An unconscious homage to the Divine law, rendered by an unbelieving Parliamentary majority, this enactment, on account of a certain temporary disturbance which it occasioned in the country's industry and commerce, and in the supply of commodities, was the object of unfortunate aminadversions on the part of certain journals which were in other respects defenders of Catholic interests. The hostility manifested by a certain number of prominent Catholics towards the Sunday rest, and their cooperation with every attempt to restrict the application of the law, produced a regrettable effect on pubic opinion.

(b) Oaths

The form of oath administered in courts of justice is not peculiar to any creed. It supposes a belief in God. The images of Christ have disappeared from the courtrooms. Proposals are being considered by the Chambers to suppress the words "devant Dieu et devant hommes" (before God and man) in the legal form of oath, or to authorize a demand on the part of any atheist to have the oath administered to him in a different form.

(c) Immunities

Since the law made military service a universal obligation in France, three enactments have followed one another: that of 27 July 1872, dispensing ecclesiastics from the obligation; that of 15 July, 1889, which fixed the term of active service for ordinary citizens at three years, and for priests at one; that of 21 March, 1905, fixing the term of active service at two years for priests as for others, and imposing upon them, up to the age of forty-five, all the series of obligations to which members of the reserves and of the territorial army are subject.

(d) Marriage

Under the old regime, parish priests officially registered births, deaths, and marriages for the State. In 1787, Louis XVI accorded to the Protestants the same privilege which, indeed, they had enjoyed under the Edict of Nantes, from 1595 to 1685. The Revolutionary law and the code Napoléon deprived the clergy of this status. Civil marriage was instituted, and the priest was forbidden to solemnize any marriage not previously contracted in the presence of a civil functionary. Immediately after the separation of church and State (1905), the question was raised, whether this prohibition was still to be maintained; the Supreme Court of Appeals (Cour de Cassation) replied in the affirmative, and punished a priest who had blessed a marriage not contracted before the mayor. Certain courts have admitted that if, after a civil marriage, one of the two parties, contrary to previous engagements, should refuse to go to church, this would constitute an injury to the other party so grave as to justify a suit for divorce; but this opinion is not unanimous. Catholics, for that matter, wish to abolish the law requiring the previous civil marriage.

Some of the impediments defined by the Church are not recognized by the State, such as, e.g., the impediment of spiritual relationship. One impediment recognized by the civil code (articles 148-150), but which the Council of Trent refused to make a canonical impediment, in spite of the solicitation of Charles IX's ambassadors, is that which results from the refusal of parents' consent. The Law of 21 June 1907, the chief advocate of which was the Abbé Lamier, considerably loosened the obligations imposed on adults with regard to parental consent, and the discrepancies in this respect between the state law and the Church law have, in consequence, become less serious.

The Law of 20 September, 1792, admitted divorce, even by mutual consent, and abolished that form of separation which, while terminating cohabitation and community possessions, maintains the indissolubility of the civil bond. The Civil Code of 1804, though imposing conditions more rigorous than those of the Law of 1792, maintained divorce, and at the same time re-established legal separation (séparation de corps). The Law of 8 May, 1816, abolished divorce and maintained separation. The Law of 27 July, 1884, re-established divorce on the grounds of the condemnation of one party to an afflicting and infamous punishment, of violence, cruelty, and grave injuries, of adultery on the part of either husband or wife; it did not admit divorce by mutual consent; it maintained separation and authorized the courts to transform into a divorce, upon the demand of either party and cause shown, at the end of three years, a separation which had been granted at the suit of either. This law has recently been aggravated by two enactments which permit the adulterous husband to contract marriage with his accomplice and, instead of merely permitting the courts to convert separation into divorce at the end of three years, declare this conversion to be of right upon the demand of either party. The annual proportion of divorces to population has increased, from 3,68 per 10,000 inhabitants in 1900, to 5.57 per 10,000 inhabitants in 1907.

(e) Interments and Cemeteries

The Decree of 23 Prairial, Year XII, ordered that there should be distinctions of religious beliefs in regard to cemeteries. This decree was abrogated by the Law of 14 November, 1881, and since then a Protestant or a Jew may be buried in that part of the cemetery which had until then been reserved for Catholics. The Law of 15 November, 1887, on free interments, forbids any proceedings which may contravene the wishes of a deceased person who has, by "an authentic act", expressed a desire to be buried without religious ceremonies. To annul such an "act", the same normal conditions are required as for the revocation of a will, and as a consequence of this law, certain death-bed conversions, when the deceased has not had time to comply with the legal conditions of revocation, have been followed by non-religious burial.

The society founded in 1880 to promote cremation brought about, in 1886, the insertion of the word incinération in the law of free interments and, in 1889, the issue of an administrative order defining the conditions in which cremation might be practised. Between 1889 and 1904 the number of incinerations performed in the cemetery of Père Lachaise amounted to 3484.

The Decrees of 23 Prairial, Year XII, and of 18 May, 1806, assigned to the public establishments which had been constituted to administer the property and resources devoted to public worship (fabriques and consistoires) a monopoly of all undertaking, that is to say, all monies received on account of funeral processions, burial or exhumations, draperies, and other objects used to enhance the solemnity of funeral processions. Most of the fabriques, in the important towns, exploited this monopoly through middlemen. Some years ago attention was called in the Chambers to the fact that the profits derived from non-religious interments, as well as from religious, were being taken by the fabriques, and upon this pretext, the law of 28 December, 1904, laicized the business of funeral-management, assigning the monopoly of it to the communes. Only the furniture used for the exterior or interior decoration of religious edifices could thenceforward be provided by the fabriques. But the separation law of 1905 intervened, and all such decorative furniture became the property of the associations cultuelles (see below). As no association cultuelle was formed for the Catholic religion, the material fell into the hands of sequestrators of the fabrique property.

The Law of Separation

"The Law of Separation of the Churches and the State" (Loi de Séparation des Eglises et de l'Etat) of 1905 proceeded from the principle that the state professes no religious belief. Regarded from the viewpoint of the life of the Church, it completely dissociated the State from the appointment of bishops and parish priests. Soon after the passage of the law all the vacant sees received titulars by the direct nomination of Pius X. As to the annual revenue of the Church, the appropriation for public worship (budget des cultes), which in 1905 amounted to 42,324,933 francs, was suppressed. The departments and communes were forbidden to vote appropriations for public worship. The law grants, first, life pensions equivalent in each case to three-fourths of former salary to ministers of religion who were not less than sixty years of age when the law was promulgated and had spent thirty years in ecclesiastical services remunerated by the State. Secondly, it grants life pensions equivalent to one-half the salary to ministers of religion who wee not less than forty-five years of age and had passed more than twenty years in ecclesiastical services remunerated by the State. It makes grants for periods of from four to eight years for ecclesiastics less than forty-five years of age who shall continue to discharge their functions. The law resulted, in the budget of 1907, in the elimination of the item of 37,441,800 francs ($7,488,360) for salaries to ministers of religion and the inclusion of 29,563,871 francs ($5,912,774) for the pensions and allowances of the first year, making a savings of about eight millions. As the allowances are to diminish progressively until the savings are complete, at the end of eight years, and as the pensions are to cease with the lives of the pensioners, the appropriations on account of religious worship will decrease notably as year follows year.

With respect to the buildings which the Concordat had placed at the disposal of the church, the law provides that the episcopal residences, for two years, the presbyteries and seminaries (grands séminaires), for five years, the churches, for an indefinite period, should be left at the disposal of the associations cultuelles, which will be discussed later on in this article. In regard to Church property, this consisted of (a) the mensæ episcopales and mensæ curiales (see Mensa), which were composed of the possessions restored to the Church after the concordat, together with the sum total of the donations made to bishoprics or parishes in the course of the intervening century; (b) the property of the parish fabriques, intended to meet all the expenses of public worship, and derived either from possessions restored to the Church after the Concordat or from gifts and legacies, and augmented by pew-rents, collections, and funeral fees. The Law of Separation divided the property of the mensæ and the fabriques into three classes. The first of these classes consisted of property received from the State, and this the State resumed; as to the second, consisting of property not received from the State, and on the other hand burdened with eleemosynary or educational obligations, it was ruled that the representatives of the fabriques could give it to public establishments or to establishments of public utility with eleemosynary or educational character, subject to the approbation of the prefect. Lastly, there was a third category which comprised property not derived from state grants and not burdened with any obligations or only with obligations connected with public worship. It was ruled that such property should pass into the hands of the associations cultuelles, and that if no such body appeared to receive it it should be assigned by decree to communal benevolent institutions within the territorial limits of the parish or diocese.

This brings us to the subject of the associations cultuelles. Under the Concordat, the episcopal mensa and the parochial fabrique were public institutions. When religious worship ceased to be a department of the public service, the Chambers, in order to replace the institutions which had been suppressed, wished to call into existence certain private "moral persons", or associations. Without any previous understanding with the Holy See, the rupture with which was already complete, the Chambers decided that in each diocese and each parish associations for religious worship (associations cultuelles) could be created to receive as proprietors the property of the mensa, with the responsibility of taking care of it. The transfer of the property was to be effected by decisions of the former fabriques in favor of these new associations. The law imposed a certain minimum number of administrators on each association, the number varying from seven to twenty-five, according to the importance of the commune, and the administrators might be French or foreign, men or women, priests or laymen. The preparation of statutes for the associations was left entirely free. Very lively controversies arose. It was suggested that the application of this law would be followed by an influx of lay Catholics, members of the associations cultuelles, into the government of the Church. Some thought this anxiety excessive; for, as the law allowed a number of adjacent parishes to be to be administered by a single association cultuelle, it seems that it would have been, strictly speaking, possible for one association, composed of the bishop and twenty-four priests chosen by him, to receive both the property of the mensa and that of all the parishes of the diocese.

But other reasons for anxiety appeared when Articles 4 and 8 of the Law were carefully compared. Article 4 provided that these associations must, in their constitutions, "conform to the general rules of organization of public worship", and as a matter of fact, at Riom, in 1907, the court refused the use of the church to a schismatical priest who was supported by a schismatical association cultuelle. But Article 8 provided for the case by which several associations cultuelles, each with its own priest, should lay claim to the same church, and gave the Council of State the right to decide between them, "taking account of the circumstances of fact". Thus, while, according to Article 4, it appeared that the cultuelle recognized by, and in communion with, the hierarchy must naturally be the owner of the property of the fabrique, Article 8 left to the Council of State, a purely lay authority, the settlement of any dispute which might arise between a cultuelle faithful to the bishop and a schismatic cultuelle. Thus it belonged to the Council of State to pronounce upon the orthodoxy of any association cultuelle and its conformity with the "general rules of public worship" as provided by Article 4.

A general assembly of the episcopate, held 30 May, 1906, considered the question of the association cultuelles, but the decisions reached were not divulged. Should such associations be formed according to the Law, or must they refuse to form any? In the month of March, twenty-three Catholic writers and members of the Chambers had expressed, in a confidential letter to the bishops, a hope that cultuelles might be given a trial. The publication of this letter had stirred up a bitter controversy, and for some months the Catholics of France were seriously divided. Pius X, in the Encyclical "Gravissimo oficii" (10 August, 1906), gave it as his judgment that this law, made without his assent, and which even purported to be made against him, threatened to intrude lay authority into the natural operation of the ecclesiastical organization; the Encyclical prohibited the formation, not only of associations cultuelles, but of any form of association whatsoever "so long as it should not be certainly and legally evident that the divine constitution of the Church, the immutable rights of the Roman pontiff and the bishops, such as their necessary authority over the property of the Church, particularly over the sacred edifices would, in the said association, be irrevocable and fully secure".

The half-contradiction between Article 4 and Article 8 was not the only serious contradiction which the Church could allege. The author of the law had further restricted in a singularly parsimonious fashion the property rights of the future associations cultuelles. They were permitted to establish unlimited reserve funds, but they were to have the free disposal of only a portion equivalent to six times the mean annual expenditure, and the surplus was to be kept in the Caisse des Déspôts et Consignations, and employed exclusively in the acquisition or conservation of real and personal property for the use of religious worship. Moreover, the business transactions of all the cultuelles were to be under state inspection and control.

Thus the law on the one hand did not leave to the Church, legally represented by the associations cultuelles, the right of freely possessing the ecclesiastical parsimony, of increasing it at will, of disposing of it at will; and on the other hand it left to the jurisdiction of the State the right, in any case of conflicting claims, to accept or to reject the claims of any cultuelle which might be in communion with the hierarchy.

The interdict laid upon the associations cultuelles had several juridical consequences. First, the third of the classes of fabriques property described above was placed under sequestration, to be assigned by the State to communal benevolent institutions, of which every commune possesses at least one -- the free hospital and dispensary. Secondly, the suppressed fabriques were under regular legal obligations, e.g., Masses to be said as consideration for pious foundations. In the intention of the author of the law, the obligation of causing these Masses to be said would have fallen upon the associations cultuelles; as these have not been founded, are the communal institutions, which enjoy the revenue of the foundations, bound to fulfil these obligations? For two years the responses given to this question by the civil authority were hesitating. The Law of 15 April, 1908, laid it down that these institutions shall in nowise be bound to cause Masses to be said in prospective consideration of which the foundations were established; that only the founders themselves or their heirs in direct line, shall have the right to claim, within a period of six months, restitution of the capital of the said foundation, but that certain clerical benefit societies (the mutualités sacerdotal, organized to received the funds of the old diocesan caisses for the support of superannuated priests) could receive income from these foundations and, in return, accept the obligation of the Masses. It appeared to the Holy See, however, that the constitutions of these benefit societies did not adequately safeguard the rights of the bishops, and the French clergy were thenceforward forbidden to avail themselves of this law. As the right of recovery on account of nonfulfillment of the conditions has been allowed only to heirs in the direct line, the numberless pious foundations established by priests or other celibates are forever lost. And at the present writing no pious foundation is legally feasible in France, because there is in the Church no personality legally qualified to receive such a bequest. Hence the absolute impossibility, for any French Catholic, for securing to himself in perpetuity the celebration in his own parish church of a Mass for the repose of his soul.

Thirdly, the use of the churches was to be assigned to the associations cultuelles, on the condition that the later should keep up the buildings. The cultuelles not having been formed, would the State take possession of the churches? It dared not; or rather it did not wish to drive home upon the popular mind the effect of the separation. After a brief period of transition, during which ridiculous procés-verbaux were drawn up against the priests who said Mass, the State left the religious edifices at the disposal of the clergy and people, officially placing assemblies for religious worship in the same official category as ordinary public gatherings; it was sufficient for the religious authority to make, at the beginning of each year, a declaration in advance for all the gatherings of public worship to be held during the year. Rome forbade the Church of France to comply with this formality of an annual declaration, thus once more endeavouring to make the State understand that legislation regulating the life of the Catholic Church could not depend on the mere will of the State, and that ecclesiastical authority could not, even by a simple declaration, actively concur in any such legislation. Once more it was thought that the closing of the churches was imminent. Then came two new laws.

The Law of 2 January, 1907, permits the exercise of religious worship in the churches purely on sufferance and without any legal title. According to this new law, the clergy have only the actual use of the edifices, the maintenance of which is an obligation incumbent upon the proprietor -- the State or the commune. But grave complications are to be expected. If the proprietor refuses the needful repairs, the church may be closed for the sake of public safety -- unless, that is, the faithful tax themselves to pay for repairs. The Church, tolerated in her own buildings, has no recourse against any mayor who might order the bells to be tolled for a nonreligious funeral. At one time it was believed that the priests would be able to rent the churches on lease, but, owing to the demands of ministerial orders, this last hope had to be abandoned. At last assemblages for religious worship were juridically classified as public meetings, and, as the Church refused to make the anticipatory declaration required by the law of 1881, on public meetings, a law passed of 28 March, 1907, abolished this requirement in respect of all public meetings, those for religious worship included.

Such was the patchwork of expedients by which the Government, embarrassed by its own law of 1905, and still refusing to negotiate with Rome, contrived what looked like a modus vivendi. The voter sees that the priest is still in the church, and that Mass is still being said there, and this is all that is needed by the Government to convince the shallow multitude that the Church is not persecuted, and that if the conditions of its existence are not prosperous, the blame must be laid on the successive refusals of the pope -- the refusal to permit the formation of cultuelles, the refusal to permit compliance with the law in the matter of declaring assemblies for public worship, the refusal to let priests to form mutualités approved by the State. All the evils of the situation are due to the fundamental error committed by the State at the very outset when, wishing to reorganize the life of the Church in France, it broke with the Holy See instead of opening negotiations. Hence the impossibility of the church actively co-operating in the execution of laws enacted by the civil authority in a purely one-sided fashion--laws which took the place of a concordat never regularly annulled. (See Concordat of 1801.)

Civil Regulation of Public Worship

(a) Rules Relating to Religious Ceremonies

While, under the Concordat, an administrative regulation was necessary for the opening of even a private chapel, it is now lawful to open places of worship without any previous authorization. A mayor can prohibit processions in his commune simply on the pretext of avoiding public disorder; as a matter of fact, in most of the great cities of France, processions do not take place. Mayors can even prohibit the presence in funeral processions of priests wearing their vestments, but very few mayors have ever issued such an order. Both the parish priest and the mayor have authority to cause the bells to be rung. A ministerial circular dated 27 January, 1907, withholds from the mayor the right to have the bells rung for "civil baptisms" or for non-religious marriages or burials, but there is no penal sanction for the transgression of this order. It is now forbidden to erect or affix any religious sign or emblem in public places or upon public monuments; but the existing emblems remain, and private property may be decorated, even externally, with religious emblems.

(b) Repression of Interference with Religious Worship

The law punishes with a fine of from 16 to 200 francs and imprisonment of from six days to two months anyone who by violence, threats, or an act which may be construed as pressure (pression) has attempted to influence an individual to exercise or abstain from exercising any religious worship, or who, by disorderly conduct, interferes with exercise of any such worship. It punishes, with a fine of from 500 to 3000 francs or imprisonment of from two months to one year, outrages or slanders against functionaries, if committed publicly in places of religious worship, and of three months to two years any preacher who shall incite his hearers to resist the laws.

The Law of Separation and the Protestants and Jews

The Law of 1905 suppressed the special organic articles which regulated Protestant worship and the Decree of 1844 which had organized Jewish worship, recognized since 1806, and provided, since 1831, with state-paid rabbis. Before 1905 there had been a Reformed Church which was administered in each parish by a presbyterial council elected by the members of the denomination, and at the capital by a consistory to which all the councils sent delegates, and which nominated pastors with the consent of the Government. The Church was very much divided in theology. It included: the Orthodox, who had carried, in the general synod of 1872, by 61 votes to 45, a declaration of faith involving as of necessity the acceptance of certain dogmas; the Liberals, who, in spite of their defeat in 1872, continued to claim for the pastor an unlimited freedom of teaching in his own church; a midway party (centre droit) who were nearer to the Liberals than to the Orthodox. The Law of 1905, in terminating the official existence of a reformed Church, had this interesting result, that the theological divisions of the various groups openly expressed themselves in the formation of three distinct great organizations for the reformed religion: (1) the Union Nationale des Eglises Réformées Evangéliques, formed by the Orthodox at the Synod of Orléans (6 February, 1906), and requiring as a condition the acceptance of the Declaration of Faith of 1872; in this body, the regional synods, in which the delegates of the presbyterial associations meet, and the national synods hold spiritual authority; (2) the Union des Eglises Réformées de France, formed by the centre droit at the synod of Jarnac (June, 1907), with the like synodal organizations, and with the hope, hardly justified so far, of receiving the adhesion of both the extreme parties; (3) the United Reformed Churches (Eglises Réformées Unies), a very vague grouping of independent presbyterial associations, leaving to each Church its autonomy, restricting the functions of the synods, and representing, in place of dogma, the negative tendencies called "liberal". In this new threefold organization one feature, the consistory, disappeared.

The Lutheran Church has but sixty-seven parishes in France. It has grouped its cultuelles into one general association.

The Jewish denomination has formed the Union des Associations Cultuelles Israélites en France. The central consistory is composed of the grand rabbi, certain rabbis elected by the graduates of the Rabbinical School of France who are employed in educational or religious functions, and lay members elected for a term of eight years by the associations cultuelles. The rabbis are elected, subject to the approval of the consistory.

Chaplaincies

The law authorizes the State, the departments, and the communes to pay salaries to chaplains in public institutions such a lycées, colleges, schools, hospitals, asylums, and prisons. In the Army the office of chaplain has not been abolished, but it remains unoccupied. Since 1 January, 1906, no minister of religion has been a member of the staff of any military hospital; the local ministers of religion may enter these hospitals at the request if sick soldiers. A decree dated 6 February, 1907, abolished the naval chaplaincies, but certain ecclesiastics who formerly filled these posts will continue to discharge the functions proper to them. The State does not allow appropriations for the maintenance of chaplaincies in schools were there are no boarders. It is a curious fact that, while the laws forbid priests to enter primary schools, they have, up to the present, admitted to the secondary schools chapl;ains paid out of the public purse; the Government feared that if this guarantee of religious training were wanting parents would send their children to private schools. But a practice recently established in a certain number of lycées tend to relieve the State of the expense of chaplaincies by compelling parents who wish their children to receive religious instruction to pay an additional sum.

Political Groups, the Press, and Intellectual and Social Organizations

Politically speaking, the Catholic group which receives the active sympathies of the Catholic press is that known as the Action Libérale Populaire, founded by M. Jacques Piou, a Member of the Chambers, on the basis indicated for Catholics by the instructions of Leo XIII. This association, which was legally incorporated 17 May, 1902, comprises 14,000 committees and more than 200,000 adherents. It acts by means of lectures, publications, and congresses. In the Chamber elected in 1906 there were 77 deputies belonging to this association.

Catholic daily journalism is represented chiefly by "L'Univers", "La Croix", and the "People Français." The former of these papers, founded 3 November 1833, by the Abbé Migne, had Eugène Veuillot for its editor from 1839 on, and Louis Veuillot after 1844. Its adhesion to the political directions given by Leo XIII detached from the "Univers", in 1893, a group of editors who founded "La Vérité Français": this split ended with the amalgamation of the "Univers" and the Vérité", 19 January, 1907. In October, 1908, under the management of M. François Veuillot, acquired greater importance with an enlarged form. "The Good Press" (Maison de la Bonne Presse), founded in 1873 by the Augustinians of the Assumption, immediately after issued the "Pèlerin", a bulletin of pious enterprises and pilgrimages, and after 1883 a daily paper, "La Croix", which has been edited since 1 April, 1900, by M. Féron Vrau. About a hundred local "Croix" are connected with the Paris "Croix". "The Good Press" publishes "Questions Actuelles", "Cosmos", "Mois Littéraire", and many other periodicals, and with it is connected the "Presse Régionale", which maintains a certain number of provincial papers defending Catholic interests. Many independent papers, either conservative or nominally liberal, are reckoned as Catholic, although a certain number of them have misled Catholic opinion by their opposition to the programme of Leo XIII.

The leading Catholic review is "Le Correspondant", founded in 1829, formerly the organ of the Liberal Catholics such as Montalembert and Falloux. Its policy is "to rally all defenders of the Catholic cause, whatever their origin, on the broad ground of liberty for all; to afford them a common centre where, laying aside difficulties which must be secondary in the view of Christians, each one can do his part, in letters, in science, in historical and philosophical science, in social life, to win the victory for Christian ideas." Monarchist by its antecedents, with a public in which Monarchists form a large proportion, the "Correspondant" has had for its editor, since May, 1904, M. Etienne Lamy, of the Académie Française, who was a Republican member of the national Assembly in 1871, and who, in 1881, brought down upon himself the displeasure of the republican electors by his sturdy opposition to the laws suppressing religious congregations.

The chief enterprises for the benefit of Catholic students in Paris are the Cercle Catholique du Luxembourg, which was founded in 1847, and in 1902 became the Association Générale des Etudiants Catholiques de Paris; the Olivaint and the Laennec lectures, established in 1875, the former for students in law and letters, the latter for medical students, by fathers of the Society of Jesus; the Réunion des Etudiants founded in 1895 by the Marist Fathers, and of which Ferdinand Brunetière was president of the board of directors until his death. Besides these, the Association Catholique de la Jeunesse Française, founded in 1886, now (June, 1909) unites in one group nearly 100,000 young men, students, peasants, employees of various kinds, and labourers; it has 2400 groups in the provinces, and holds annual congresses in which, for some years past, social questions have been actively discussed. It was at the congregation held by this association at Besançon in 1898, that the conversion of Ferdinand Brunetière was made known in a very remarkable speech of the famous academician. Since 1905 it has been publishing its "Annales", and since 1907 a journal, "La Vie Nouvelle."

The extremely original association of the "Sillon" (furrow), attractive to some, disquieting to others, was founded in 1894 in the crypt of the Stanislaus college and became, in 1898, under the direction of M. Marc Sangnier, a focus of social, popular, and democratic action. M. Sangnier and his friends develop, in their Cercles d'études, and propagate, in public meetings of the most enthusiastic character, the twofold idea that democracy is the type of social organization which tends to the highest development of conscience and of civic responsibility in the individual, and that this organization needs Christianity for its realization. To be a sillonniste. according to the adherents of the Sillon, it is not enough merely to profess a doctrine, but one must live a life more fully Christian and fraternal. The Sillon has held a national congress every year since 1902; that of 1909 brought together more than 3000 members. The character of the organization has exposed it to lively criticisms; its reception has not been the same in all dioceses. But in spite of obstacles, the sillonistes continue their activity, often independent of, but never in opposition to, the hierarchy, carrying on their work of penetration in indifferent or hostile surroundings. They have a review, "Le Sillon", and a newspaper, "L'Eveil Démocratique", which in two years has gained 50,000.

Catholic undertakings for the benefit of the young people of the poorer classes have developed mightily of late years. In 1900 the "Commission des Patronages" drew up statistics according to which the Catholics had charge of 3588 protectories (patronages) and 32,574 institutions of various kinds giving Christian care to the young. In the city of Paris alone there were at that date, 176 Catholic protectories, with 26,000 young girls under their care. The Gymnastic Federation of the Protectories of France, formed after the gymnastic festival which was held at the Vatican on 5 to 8 October, 1905, numbers to-day (June, 1909) 549 Catholic gymnastic societies and 60,000 young people.

The State carries on its fight against the Church in the field of post-academic education; in 1894 there were in France only 34 non-religious (laïques) protectories, 1366 for boys, and 998 for girls. To the political groups, the journalistic work, the good works for the benefit of the young, must be added to the "Catholic social" undertakings, the earliest of which was the Oeuvre dyes Cercles Catholiques d'Ouviers, funded in 1871 by Count Albert de Mun, the chief result of which was the introduction by Catholics in the Legislature of a number of legislative projects on social questions. The last five years have seen in France the birth and development, through the initiative of M. Henri Lorin and the Lyons journal, the "Chronique de Sud-Est", of the institution known as the the semaines sociales, a series of social courses which bring together a great many priests and Catholic lay people. This idea has been imitated in Catholic Spain and Italy. Lastly a body of Jesuits have begun a valuable collection of brochures and tracts, under the title "L'Action populaire", which forms a veritable reference library for those who wish to study social Catholicism and an inestimable source of information for those who wish to join actively in the movement.

The Church in France During the First Three Years after the Law of Separation

On 16 December, 1905, a large number of bishops issued a request to the parish priest and members of the fabric committees (fabriques -- see above) not to be present at the taking of inventories of church furniture prescribed by the Law of Separation except as mere witnesses and after making all reserves. A circular, dated 10 January, 1906, ordering the agents of the Department of Public Domains to open the tabernacles, intensified the feeling of indignation and, in consequences of an appellation, was implicitly disavowed, by M. Merlou, the Minister of France. But the feeling lasted and, from the end of January to the end of March, expressed itself, in a certain number of churches, in violent outbreaks against the agents who came to take the inventories. The breaking open of locked doors, the cashiering of military officers who refused to lend the aid of their troops to these proceedings, the arrest and prosecution of people taking part in Catholic demonstrations, and the mortal wounds inflicted on some of them in the departments of Nord, and of Haute-Loire aggravated the public irritation. There was some hope among Catholics that the general elections, which would take place in May, would result in defeat for the Government; but these hopes were not realized; the opposition lost fifty seats in the balloting of 6-20 May.

The first general gathering of the bishops was held on 30 May, 1906. The Encyclical "Gravissiomo officii" (10 August, 1906), which rejected the cultuelles, received the absolute obedience of the Catholics. The attempt to form schismatic cultuelles, made by some priests and laymen in eight localities, met with derision and contempt, and these isolated bodies of schismatics failed to obtain possession of the religious edifices even by appealing to the courts. The second and third general gatherings of the bishops (4-7 September, 1906, and 15 January, 1907), thanked Pius X for the encyclical and discussed the organization of public worship, in accordance with a very definite programme for deliberation which the Holy See had sent to Cardinal Richard, Archbishop of Paris. On 12 December, 1906, Mgr. Montagnini, who had remained in Paris as guardian of the pontifical archives, was expelled from France after a minute domiciliary search and the seizures of his papers. The Vatican protested in a circular dated 19 December. Various incidents in the application of the law -- the expulsion of Cardinal Richard from his archiepiscopal residence (15 December, 1906), expulsions of seminarists from the seminaries, the employment of troops at Beaupréau and at Auray to enforce such an expulsion -- called forth lively protests from the Catholic press which saw, in all these episodes, the realization of the settled policy thus expounded by M. Viviani, Minister of Labour, in the Chamber of Deputies, 8 November, 1906: "Through our fathers, through our elders, through ourselves -- all of us together-- we have bound ourselves to a work of anticlericalism, to a work of irreligion. . . . We have extinguished in the firmament lights which shall not be rekindled. We have shown the toilers that heaven contained only chimeras."

Successive meetings of the bishops have organized the work of the Denier du Clergé. The organization is diocesan, not parochial. No individual is taxed; the subscriptions are entirely voluntary; but in many diocese the diocesan budget fixes, without, however, imposing, the contribution which each parish ought to furnish. A commission of control, composed of priests and laymen, in many diocese takes charge of the disbursement of the Denier du Clergé, If a parish contributes insufficiently, and that not from lack of means but from lack of goodwill, the bishop can withdraw its parish priest. Two penalties can be inflicted on Catholics who culpably refuse to contribute to the support of religious worship: a diminution of pomp in the administration of the sacraments, and an increase, as affecting such persons, of incidental burdens.

The first results of the Denier du Clergé in the various dioceses are not as yet well ascertained; they seem to justify neither over-enthusiastic hopes nor over-pessimistic fears. An inter-diocesan fund (caisse) is beginning to do its work in aiding the poorer dioceses. In many communities, the communal authority, having taken possession of the presbytery, has rented it to the parish priest for a certain sum, but the law declares that the lease, to be valid, must have been ratified by the prefect. By this means the State has sought to prevent the communes from renting presbyteries too cheap. Of 32,093 presbyteries existing in France, 3643 were still occupied rent-free by the parish priests at the beginning of October, 1908. A circular of M, Briand, Minister of Justice, has aminadverted on this fact as an abuse. It appears that in most of the dioceses a central committee, or a diocesan bureau, composed of priests and laymen, is to be formed, with the episcopal authority for its centre, to combine the direction of all the organized work of the diocese. Subject to this committee there will be committees in the several arrondissements, cantons, and parishes. When consulted in May, 1907, Pius X preferred small parochial committees under the curés to the formation of parochial associations (which might be interpreted as an acceptance of the Law of 1901 on associations), with an unlimited number of members. The ecclesiastical seminaries, which the Law of Separation drove out of the buildings they were occupying, have been reconstituted in other homes under the title "Ecoles Supérieures de Théologie."

At present one of the most serious preoccupations of the Church in France is the supply of priests. In 1878, when Mgr. Bougaud wrote his book, "Le grand péril de l'Eglise de France," there was a deficiency of 2467 priests in France. Père Dudon, who has studied the question of the supply of priests very profoundly, computes that in 1906, at the breaking of the Concordat, there was a deficiency of 3109, and the very insecurity of the position of the Church before the law furnishes ground for the fear that vocations will go on decreasing in frequency.

Geography. -- Reclus, La France in Géographie universelle (Paris, 1876), II; Vidal de la Blanche, La France (Paris, 1903); Michelet, Tableau de la France in vol. II of the Histoire mentioned below; Dumazet, Voyage en France (47 vols., Paris, 1894-1907); Marshall, Cathedral Cities of France (London, 1907).
General History. -- Michelet, Histoire de France (new edition, 17 vols., Paris, 1871-74 -- recommended by the truthfulness of its historical colouring rather than exactness of detail, a picture rather than a narrative); Martin, Histoire de France (19 vols., Paris, 1855-60 -- conscientious research with anti-Catholic tendencies and somewhat out of date); Dareste, Histoire de France, (8 vols., Paris, 1864-73 -- clear and judicious); Bodley, France (2nd. ed., London, 1899); Galton, Church and State in France, 1300-1900 (London, 1907); Kitchen, A History of France (Oxford, 1892-94). A group of specialists under the direction of Lavisse have undertaken the publication of a Histoire of France of which the published volumes bring their subject down to the end of Louis XIV; this work -- the contributors to which are men of learning, each following his own bent, though never violently -- gives the last word of science at the present time. Louis Batiffol, La Renaissance (Paris, 1905), is the only volume which has yet appeared of a collection now being prepared under the title Histoire de France pour tous. Adams, The Growth of the French Nation (London, 1897).
No General History of the Church of France is really worthy to be recommended. The principal documents to consult are: Gallia Chistiana (q. v.); Jean, Les archevéques et évéques de France de 1682 à 1801 (Paris, 1891); Hanotaux ed., Instructions des ambassadeurs de France auprès du Saint-Siège (Paris, 1888); Imbart de la Tour, Archives de l'histoire religieuse de la France (4 vols. have appeared); Baunard, Un siècle de l"eglise de France (Tours, 1901 -- dealing with the nineteenth century); L'episcopat français au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1907). On the Sources of the History of France the chief repertories are: Monod, Bibliographie de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1888); Catalogue del l'histoire de France de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1855-82); Langlois and Stein, Les archives de l'histoire de France (Paris, 1891); Monlinier, Les sources de l'histoire de France (4 vols., Paris, 1901-04).
For bibliography of the French Revolution, see FRENCH REVOLUTION.
For France in the Nineteenth Century see NAPOLEON. Also Currier, Constitutional and Organic Laws of France, 1875-1889 (Philadelphia, 1891); Viel-Castel, Histoire de la Restauration (20 vols., Paris, and trans., London, 1888); Thureau-Dangin, Histoire de la monarchie de Julliet (Paris); de la Gorce, Histoire du second Empire (7 vols., Paris); Ollivier, L'Empire libéral (Paris, 1904-06 -- 13 vols. have appeared); Lamy, Etudes sur le second Empire (Paris); Hanotaux, Histoire de la France contemporaine, 1870-1883 (4 vols., Paris, 1902-09); Zévort, Histoire de la troisième République (4 vols., Paris, 1900-05); Coubertin, L'Evolution française sous la troisième République (tr., London, 1898); Parmele, The Evolution of an Empire (New York, 1897). On the Religious History of France under the Third Republic: Deridour, L'Eglise catholique et l'Etat sous la troisième République (2 vols., Paris, 1906-08 -- very anti-Catholic); Lecannet, L'Eglise de France sous la troisième République (Paris, 1907 -- Catholic; brings the subject down to 1878); Du toast à l'encyclique (Paris, 1893). For parochial statistics see the annuals Le clergé Français and le France ecclésiastique.
On the Law against Congregations and the Law of Separation: Briand, La séparation (2 vols., Paris, 1907 and 1909); Speeches of Waldeck-Rousseau and Ribot; De Mund, La loi des suspects (2 vols., Paris, 1902) Combes, Une campagne laïque (2 vols, Paris, 1902 and 1906). the Law on Associations has been discussed by Troulliot and Chapsal; that on Separation by Réville, with radical tendencies, and by Taudiére and Lamarzelle, with Catholic tendencies. La Revue d'orgainisation et la défense réligieuse, publishjed by the Good Press since 1906, gives every day the state of the law in relation to Catholic interests.
On the Marriage Laws: Sermet, La loi du 21 Jun 1907 sur le Mariage (Toulouse, 1908). -- On the influence of Freemasonry: Prache, La pétition contra la maçonnerie; rapport parlementaire (Paris, 1905); Goyau, La Franc-Maçonnerie en France (Paris, 1899). On the Religious Orders: Mémoire pour la défense des congrégations religieuses (Paris, 1880); Kannengeiser, France et Allemagne (Paris, 1900). On the Missions and the Protectorate: Piolet, Les missions catholiques françaises (six vols., Paris, 1900-03); Bouvier, Loin du pays (Paris, 1808); Rey, La protection diplomatique et consulaire dans les échelles du Levant (Paris, 1899); Goyau, Les nations apôtres. Vieille France, jeune Allemagne (Paris, 1903); Kannengeiser, Les missions catholiques, France et Allemagne (Paris, 1900). On France at Rome: Lacroix, Mémoire historique sur les institutions de la France à Rome (2nd. ed., Rome, 1892). On the School Situation: Speeches of Jules Ferry; Pichard, Nouveau code de l'instruction primaire (18th ed., Paris, 1905); Goyau, L'ecole d'aujourd'hui (2 vols., Paris, 1899 and 1906); Lescoeur, La mentalité laïque à l'école (Paris, 1906); des Alleuls, Histoire de l'enseignement secondaire, 2 vols., Paris, 1900 -- official); Lamarzelle, La crise universitaire (Paris, 1900). On Charitable Institutions: Paris charitable (3rd ed. Paris, 1904); La France charitable (Paris, 1899) -- two collections of monographs published by the office central des institutions charitables. -- On Social Organizations the chief sources are collective reports on Catholic enterprises published at the Exposition of 1900, the Guide annuaire social (annual since 1905) and the Manual social pratique (1909) published by the Action populaire of Reims, with brochures issued by this last association. -- On the Grouping of Religious Movements: Fraenzel, Vers l'union des catholiques (Paris, 1907); Guide d'action religieuse (Paris, 1908).

GEORGES GOYAU

French Literature

Origin and Foundations of the French Language

When the Romans became masters of Gaul, they imposed their language on that country, together with their religion, their laws, their customs, and their culture. The low Latin, which thus became universal throughout Gaul, was not slow in undergoing a change while passing through Celtic and Frankish throats, and in showing traces of climate and of racial genius. From this transformation rose a new tongue, the Romance, which was destined to gradually evolve itself into the French. The glossaries of Reichenau and of Cassel contain many translations of Latin and Germanic words into Romance; they date from the eighth century. The earliest texts in our possession belong to the ninth century, and are more valuable from an archeological than from a literary standpoint. These are the formulas called "Les Serments de Strasbourg" (the oaths pronounced by the soldiers of Louis the German and of Charles the Bald, A.D. 842); the song or "Prose de Sainte Eulalie", an imitation of a Latin hymn of the Church (about 880); a portion of a "Homélie sur Jonas" discovered at Valenciennes, and written in a mixture of Latin and Romance, dating from the early part of the tenth century; "La Vie de Saint Léger", a bald narrative in verse, written in the latter part of the tenth century. The metamorphosis, under the action of influences now no longer traceable, of Low Latin into Romance did not proceed along the same lines everywhere in Gaul. From the Pyrenees to the Scheldt it varied with the varying localities, and gave rise to many dialects. These dialects may be grouped into two principal languages and which usually named for word used for an affirmative in each: the Romance language of oc in the South and the Romance language of oïl in the North. The oïl language comprised all the varieties of speech in use to the north of an imaginary line drawn from the estuary of the Girande to the Alps, passing through Limousin, Auvergne, and Dauphiny. In the twelfth century, the speech of the Ile-de-France began to take the lead over all the others, for the very good reason that it was the speech of the royal domain. Hereafter the French language possesses its form, and can give birth to a literature.

In the Middle Ages

Epic Poetry

In France, as everywhere else, literature began with poetry, and that epic. For many centuries this seems to have been the form natural to the French mind; and the abundance of the output is striking proof of the breadth and power of the movement. To comprehend more clearly the great mass of epic works of this period, we distinguish three subject-matters, or three cycles: the French, or national cycle; the Breton cycle; the antique cycle.

The origin of the French cycle go back to the first age of Frankish domination. The Frankish chiefs all kept their singers, who celebrated their exploits in poems of heroic inspiration. These compositions, called cantilènes, were sung at the harp, either at their festivals, or at the head of the army before a battle. This spontaneous growth of epic poetry goes on until the tenth century; but after the tenth century, the inventive power of the poets -- the trouvères, as they are called -- is exhausted; they no longer compose new songs, but co-ordinate, above all amplify, and finally reduce to writing the songs left to them by their predecessors. By dint of this labour of arrangement and editing they compose the chansons de geste ("history songs", from the Latin gesta, "things done", "history"). Comparatively short, these chansons de geste are written in lines of six syllables which are made into couplets, or laisses, with assonances, or imperfect rhymes (such, as e.g., perde and superbe). Like the old cantilènes, they were intended to be sung by the trouvère at feasts or in battle. They are all connected with real historical episodes which, however, are embellished, and often disfigured, with popular traditions and the fruits of the poet's own imagination. The most famous of these chansons de geste, the "Chanson de Roland", put into writing about the year 1080, and by an unknown author, is the chef d'oeuvre of this national epic poetry. It admirably reflects the society of the time. With its scenes of carnage, its loud clash of blades, its heroic barons who sacrifice their lives for the emperor and die after commending their souls to God, its miraculous intervention of angels who receive the soul of the brave warrior, the Chanson de Roland places vividly before the imagination the France of the eleventh century, warlike, violent, still barbarous, but thoroughly animated by an ardent faith. The "Chanson de Roland" is the most widely known of the chansons de geste, but a multitude of them are extant, and they all contain great beauties. While some of them, centering upon Charlemagne ("Le Pèlerinage de Charlemagne", "Aimeri de Narbonne", "Girard de Viane", etc.), celebrate the union of France under the kingship and conflicts with external enemies, others are inspired by the struggles maintained by great feudal chiefs against the king ("Ogier le Danois", Renaud de Montauban", "Gèrard de Roussillion"), by the wars of vassals among themselves, and by historical memories belonging particularly to this or that province ("Raoul de Cambrai", the "Geste des Lorains", "Auberi le Bourgoing"). The interesting element in all of them is, chiefly, their faithful portrayal of the feudal world, its virtues, and its asperities.

From the end of the twelfth century, the success of the chansons de geste is counterbalanced by that of the Romances of the Breton cycle. Here imagination roams at large, above all, that kind of imagination which we call fantasy. The marvellous plays an important part. Manners are less violent, more delicate. Love, almost absent from the chansons de geste, holds a great place and utters itself in a style at once respectful and exalted. We find everywhere the impress of a twofold mysticism, that of chivalry and of religion. In other words, if the chansons de geste bear the stamp of the Germanic spirit, the Breton romances are inspired by the Celtic. The central figure is that of King Arthur, a character borrowed from history, the incarnation of the independence of the Breton race. Around him are his companions, the knights of the Round Table and Merlin the wizard. The Breton romances were intended to be read, not to be sung; they were written, moreover, in prose. In course of time, Chrestien de Troyes, a poet rather facile and prolific than truly talented, put them into rhymed verse. Between 1160 and 1180 he wrote "Perceval le Gallois", "Le Chevalier au lion", "Lancelot en la charrette", "Cligès", "Eric et Enide". In these romances Launcelot is the type of l'amour courtois -- the "gentle love" which every knight must bear his lady.

As for the antique cycle, it is no more than a work of imitation. The clerics, observing the success of epic and narrative poetry, conceived the idea of throwing into the same form the traditions of antiquity. The "Roman d'Alexandre" and the "Roman de Troie", both written in the second half of the twelfth century, and amusing for their anachronisms and their baroque conceits, are, on the other hand, long, diffuse and mediocre.

Lyric Poetry

In these primitive periods of history the lines of division between various types of literature are not well defined. From the cantiléne there sprang in turn the lyric poetry of the North. In these rough-hewn romances, the poet relates four or five couplets of varied rhythm, but all ending with the same refrain, an adventure of war or of love; they are called chansons de toile (spinning songs) or chansons de danse, because women sang them either as they spun and chatted or as they danced rondes. Love nearly always plays the chief part in them -- the love, successful or crossed, of a young girl for a beau chevalier, or perhaps a love crushed by the death of the beloved -- such are the themes of the principal chansons de toile that have come down to us, "Belle Bremboure", "Belle Idoine", "Belle Aiglantine", "Belle Doette". But it was in Provence that lyric verse was to reach its fullest development. Subtle, learned, and somewhat artificial, Provençal poetry had for its only theme love -- an idealized and quintessential love -- l'amour courtois. On this common theme, the troubadours embroidered variations of the utmost richness; the form which they employed, a very complex one, had given rise to manifold combinations of rhythms. The men of the North were dazzled when they came to know Provençal poetry. Strangely enough, it did not spread directly from province to province within the borders of France, but by way of the Orient, from the Holy Land, during the Crusades, where Southern and Northern lords met each other. Soon a whole group of poets of the oïl tongue in the North and East -- Conon de Béthune, Grace Brulé, Blondel de Nesles, and especially Thiébaut, Count of Champagne -- set to work to imitate the Provençal compositions.

Bourgeoise and Satirical Literature

The epic and the lyric were essentially aristocratic; they addressed themselves to an audience of barons that represented almost exclusively the manners and feelings of the upper classes in the feudal world. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, and after the liberation of the communes, the bourgeoisie makes its appearance, and from that moment dates the origin and rise of a bourgeois literature. It begins with the fabliaux, little tales told in line of eight syllables, pleasant stories intended only to amuse. The characters they introduce are people of humble or middling station -- tradesmen, artisans, and their women-folk -- who are put through all sorts of ridiculous adventures; their vices and oddities are ridiculed smartly and with some degree of malice -- too often, also with coarseness and indecency. These fabliaux are animated by the Gallic spirit of irony and banter, in contrast to the heroic or "gentle" (courtois), spirit which inspires the epic and lyric works. Bourgeoise and villagers find here a realistic picture of their existence and their manners, but freely caricatured so as to provoke laughter.

Combine the spirit of the fabliaux with memories of the chanson de geste, and we have the "Roman de Renart", a vast collection, formed early in the thirteenth century, of stories in verse thrown together without sequence or connection. This work which, it is believed, was proceeded by another now lost, contains 30,000 lines. Enlarged by successive editions, the "Roman de Renart" is the work not only of several authors, but of a whole country and a whole epoch. What gives it unity, in spite of the diversity and incongruity of the stories of which it is made up, is that in all parts, the same hero appears again and again -- Renart, the fox. The action round about Renart is carried on by many other characters, such as Ysengrin, the wolf, Noble, the lion, Chantecler, the cock, pseudo-animals that mingle with their bearing and instincts as animals traits and feelings borrowed from humanity. Under pretext of relating an intrigue bristling with complications, in which Ysengin and Renart are pitted against each other, the "Roman", a kind of parody of the chansons de geste, ridicules the nobles, feudal society, and feudal institutions.

Didactic Poetry

Nobles and bourgeois, the two classes which, in the literature of the Middle Ages, speak with two accents so dissimilar, have one point of resemblance: the one class is as ignorant as the other. Only the clerics had any hold upon science -- the little science that those times possessed. It had long remained shut up in Latin books composed in imitation of ancient models, but, beginning in the thirteenth century, the clerics conceived the idea of bringing the contents of these works within the domain of the vulgar tongue. This was the origin of didactic literature, in which the most important work is "Roman de la Rose", an immense encyclopedic work produced by two authors with tendencies and mentalities in absolute mutual opposition, collaborating at an interval of forty years. The first 4000 lines of the "Roman de la Rose" were written about the year 1236 by Guillame de Lorris, a charming versifier endowed with every attractive quality. In the design of Guillame de Lorris, the work is another "Art of Love"; the author proposes to describe in it love and the effects of love, and to indicate the way of success for a lover. He personifies all the phases of love and varieties of love and the other sentiments which attend it, and makes them so many allegorical figures. Jealousy, Sadness, Reason, Fair Response (Bel-Accueil) -- such are the abstractions to which Lorris lends a tenuous embodiment. With Jean de Meung, who wrote the continuation of the "Roman de la Rose", about 1275, the inspiration changes completely. Love is not longer the only subject. In a number of prolix discourses, aggregating 22,000 lines in length, the latter author not only contrives to bring in a multitude of notions on physics and philosophy, but enters into a very severe criticism of contemporary social organization.

Prose and the Chroniclers

Prose separates itself from poetry but slowly; when the epic outpouring is exhausted history appears to takes its place. It is the great movement of the Crusades that gives the impulse. Villehardouin, in his "Histoire de la Conquête de Constantinople" (1207) relates the events which he witnessed as a participant in the Fourth Crusade; he knows how to see and how to tell, with restraint and vigour, what he has seen and done. His chronicle is not, strictly speaking, history, but rather memoirs. Joinville attaches more importance to the moral element; the charm of his "Histoire de St. Louis" (1309) is in the bonhomie, at once frank and deliberate, with which he sets forth the king's virtues and recounts his "chevaleries".

The great representative of history in the Middle Ages is Froissart (1337-1410); in him we have to deal with a veritable writer. Just when the feudal world was entering upon its period of decadence, and the chivalry of France had been decimated at Crécy and Agincourt, feudalism and chivalry find in Froissart their most marvelous portrayer. His work, "Choniques de France, d'Angleterre, d'Espagne, de Bretagne, Gascogne, de Flandre et autres lieux" is the story of all the splendid feats of arms in the Hundred Years' War. Pitched battles, assaults, mere skirmishes, isolated raids, deeds of chivalric daring, single combats -- he describes them with picturesque effect and a distinction of style new in our literature. An aristocratic writer, he is above all attracted by the brilliant aspects of society -- wealth, gallantry, chivalry. He scorns the bourgeois and the common people, and considers it quite natural that they should pay the cost of war. In his work is nothing to recall the gloominess of the period; he has seen in it nothing but exploits and heroic adventure.

Froissart knew how to depict the outward semblance of an epoch. Philippe de Commynes, on the other hand, the historian of Louis XI, is a connoisseur of souls; his viewpoint is from within. A minister of Louis XI and then of Charles VIII, he is versed in affairs. He is much given, moreover, to analysis of character and the unravelling of events which have a political bearing. He goes backs from effects to causes and is already rising to the conception of the general laws which govern history. One must not look for either brilliancy or relief in his style; but he has clearness, precision, solidity.

The Drama

The fifteenth century would make but a sorry figure in the history of French literature had it not been that in this epoch there developed and flourished a literary form which had been inchoate during the preceding centuries. Entirely original in foundation and style, that drama owes nothing to antiquity. It was the Church,. the great power of those ages, which gave birth to it. For the masses in the Middle Ages, the Church was the home where, united in the same thoughts, and the same consoling hopes, they spent that part of their lives which was the best, and so the longest offices of the church were the most beloved by the people. Conformable with this feeling, the clergy interpolated in the offices representations of certain events in religious history. Such was the liturgical drama, which was presented more especially at the feasts of Christmas ("Les Pasteurs", "L'Epoux", "Les Prophetés") and Easter ("La Passion", "La Résurrection", "Les Pèlerins"). At first the liturgical drama was not more than a translation of Bible into action and dialogue, but little by little it changed as it developed. The text became longer, verse took the place of prose, the vernacular supplanted Latin. The drama at the same time was tending to make for itself an independent existence and to come forth from the Church.

In the fourteenth century there appeared "Les Miracles de Notre-Dame", a stage presentment of a marvelous event brought about by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin. Thus was the drama making its way toward its completer form, that of the mysteries. A mystery is the exposition in dialogue of an historical incident taken from Holy Scripture or from the lives of the saints. Mysteries may be grouped, according to their subjects, in three cycles: the Old Testament cycle ("Le Mystére du Viel Testament", in 50,000 lines), the New Testament cycle, ("La Passion", composed by Arnoul Greban and presented in 1450), the cycle of the saints ("Les Actes des Apôtres") by Arnoul and Simon Greban). Metrically, the mystery is written in lines of eight syllables; the lyric passages were supposed to be sung. A prologue serves the purpose of stating the theme and bespeaking silence of the audience. The piece itself is divided into days, each day occupying as many lines as could be recited at one séance, and the whole ends with an invitation to prayer: "Chatons Te Deum laudamus".

The dramatic system of the mysteries contains certain thoroughly characteristics elements. First of all, the constant recourse to the marvellous: God, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints intervene in the action; later on abstract characters -- Justice and Peace, Truth, Mercy -- are added. Then the mingling of the tragic and the comic: side by side with scenes intended to excite deep emotion, the authors of mysteries present others which are mere buffoonery, and sometimes of the coarsest kind. This comic element is borrowed from scenes of modern life: for anachronism is rampant in the mysteries, contemporary questions are discussed, Christ and the saints are depicted as people of the fifteenth century. Lastly, not only does the action wander without restraint from place to place, but occasionally it goes on in several different places at the same time. If the conception was original and interesting, the execution of it, unfortunately, was very mediocre. The authors of mysteries were not artists; they knew nothing of character-drawing; their characters are all of a piece, without individual traits. Above all, the style is deplorable, and but seldom escapes platitude and solecism. The fifteenth was, as a whole, the great century of mysteries; they were then in perfect harmony with the ideas and sentiments of the period. In the next century, with the change in those ideas and sentiments, they were to enter upon their decadence and to disappear.

Did comedy too, in its turn, come forth from the Church? Can we connect it with the burlesque offices of the "Feast of Fools" and the "Feast of the Ass"? -- Beyond doubt we cannot. But in the fourteenth century, joyous bands of comrades organized themselves for their own common amusement -- the "Basoche", a society of lawyers, and the "Sots" or the "Enfants sans souci". It was by these societies that comic pieces were composed and played throughout the fifteenth century. Farces, moralities, and follies (soties) were the kinds of compositions which they cultivated. The farce was a comic piece the aim of which was to amuse; although it did not issue all complete from the fabliau, the farce bore a strong analogy to that form, and, as the themes were identical, the farce was often nothing more than a fabliau in action. The best specimen of the type is "La Farce d'Avocat Pathelin" (1470) which presents a duel of wits between an advocate and a cloth-merchant, the one as thorough a rascal as the other. The morality, a comic piece with moral aims, is far inferior to the farce. Essentially pedantic, it constantly employs allegory, personifying the sentiments, defects, and good qualities of men, and sets them in opposition to each other on the stage. As for the folly (sotie), which may be called a dramatic pamphlet or squib, and belongs to the satiric drama, it was the special work of the "Enfants sans souci" and lasted but a short while.

The true literary distinction of the fifteenth century is to have given France a great poet -- not the elegant, cold, Charles d'Orléans, but that "child of poor and mean extraction" (de povre et petite extrace), that "mauvais garçon" who was François Villon. Insubordinate scholar, haunter of taverns, guilty of theft and even of assassinations, the marvel is that he should have been able to evoke his grave and lofty poetry from that life of infamy. His chief collection, "Le Grand Testament" (1489) is dominated by that thought of death which, for the first time in France, finds its expression in the "Ballade des Dames du Temps jadis". Thus did the Christian Middle Ages utter through Villon what had been their essential preoccupation.

The Renaissance and the Reformation

When the sixteenth century opens, literature in France may be regarded as exhausted and moribund. What had been lacking in the Middle Ages was the enthusiasm for form, the worship of art, combined with a language sufficiently supple and opulent. The Renaissance was about to bestow these gifts; it was to communicate the sense of beauty to the writers of that age by setting before them as models the great masterpieces of antiquity. Reversion to antiquity -- this is the characteristics which dominates all the literature of the sixteenth century. The movement did not attain its effect directly, but through Italy, and as a sequel to the wars of Charles VIII. "The first contact with Italy" says Brunetière, "was in truth a kind of revelation for us French. In the midst of the feudal barbarism of which the fifteenth century still bore the stamp, Italy presented the spectacle of an old civilization. She awed the foreigner by the ancient authority of her religion and all the pomp of wealth and of the arts. Add to this the allurement of her climate and her manners. Italy of the Renaissance, invaded, devastated, trampled under foot by the men of the North, suddenly, like the Greece of yore, took possession of the rude conquerors. They conceived the idea of another life, more free, more ornate -- in a word, more 'human' -- than that which they had been leading for five or six centuries; a confused feeling of the power of beauty twined itself into the souls of gendarmes and lansquenets, and it was then that the breath of the Renaissance, coming over the mountains with the armies of Charles VIII, of Louis XII, and of Francis I, completed in less than fifty years the dissipation of what little still survived of the medieval tradition."

If the language very quickly undergoes the modification brought about by this new spirit, it is only little by little that the various forms of literature allow themselves to be penetrated by it. Such is the case with poetry. The principal poet of the earlier half of the sixteenth century, Clément Marot (1497-1544), belongs, by his inspiration, to both the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Of the Middle Ages he has first of all his scholastic education and also an uncontrolled passion for allegories and for bizarre and complicated versification. In the best of his "Epîtres" he sacrifices to the worst of the faults held in honour by the fifteenth century: the taste for alliteration, for playing upon words, and for childish trick of rhyme. On another side the influence of the Renaissance reveals itself in his work in many imitations of the Latins, Virgil, Catullus, Ovid. The "Epîtres", his masterpiece are, besides, in a style of composition borrowed from the Latin. A court poet, attached to the personal suite of Margaurite de Valois, herself a humanist and a patroness of humanists, no man was more favorably situated for the effect of that influence. Marot is, in other respects, a very original poet; his "Epîtres" mark the appearance of a quality almost new in French literature -- wit. The art of saying things prettily, of telling a story cleverly, of winning pardon for his mockeries by mocking at himself, was Marot's.

Graeco-Latin imitation is really only an accidental feature of the work of Marot. With the poets who succeed him it becomes the very origin of their inspiration. For the poets who later formed the group called "La Pléiade", Joachim du Bellay furnished a programme in the "Deffence et Illustration de la langue française" (1549). To eschew the superannuated formulæ and the "condiments" (épiceries) of the Middle Ages, to imitate without reserve anything that has come down to us from antiquity, to enrich the language by every means practicable -- by borrowing from Greek, from Latin, from the vocabulary of the handicrafts -- these are the principles which this author lays down in his work. And these are the principles which the chief of the "Pléiade", Pierre de Ronsard (1524-85), applies. Ronsard's ambition is to exercise his wits in all the styles of composition in which the Greeks and Romans excelled. After their example he composed odes, an epic work (the "Franciade", in which he aspires to do for France what Virgil, with the Æneid, did for Rome), and some eclogues. If he has utterly failed in his epic attempt, and if his abuse of erudition renders his odes very difficult to read, it must nevertheless be said that these works sparkle with beauties of the first order. Ronsard was not only, as was said long ago of him, the marvelous workmen of little pieces, of sonnets and tiny odes; in brilliancy of imagination, in the gift for inventing new rhymes, he is one of the greatest poets known to French literature. Side by side with him Du Bellay, in his "Regrets", inaugurated la poésie intime, the lyricism of confidences, and Jodelle gave to the world "Cléopâtre" (1552), the first, in point of date, of the tragedies imitated from the antique, thus opening the way for Robert Garnier and Montchrestien.

At the same time that the Renaissance was bringing us the feeling for art, the Reformation was giving currency to new ideas and tendencies. The two inspirations commingled rendered possible the work of the two masters of sixteenth-century prose, Rabelais and Montaigne. In that prodigious nursery tale, in which he scatters buffoneries and indecencies by the handful, it would be a mistake to think that the author of "Gargantua" hides a thought and a symbol under every line of text. All the same it is true that one must break the bone to find the "subtantific marrow". Rabelais has a hatred of the Middle Ages, of its scholasticism and its asceticism. For his part he does not mistrust human nature; he believes it to be good, and wants people to follow its law, which is instinct. His ideal is the abbey of Thelema, where the rule runs: Do as you please (Fais ce que tu volundras). "Nature is my gentle guide" says Montaigne on his part. This is one of the ideas which circulate in his essays, the first book of which appeared in 1580. In this sort of disjointed confession, Montaigne speaks above all of himself, his life, his tastes, his habits, his favorite reading. As he goes along, he expounds his philosophy, which is a kind of skepticism, if you will, but applying exclusively to the things which belong to reason, for with Montaigne the Christian faith remains intact. What makes Montaigne an original writer, and makes his place in French literature one of capital importance, is his having been the first to introduce into that literature, by his minute study of his own Ego, that psychological and moral study of man which was to form the foundation of great works in the next century.

In a general way the Reformation produced a profound impression on the writers of the sixteenth century, giving them a freedom of movement and of thought unknown to their predecessors of the Middle Ages. On the other hand, multiplying theological discussions, controversies, and fierce polemics between Catholics and Protestants -- dividing France into two parties -- it gave birth to a whole literature of conflict. We will confine ourselves to mention of Calvin and his "Institution de la religion chrétienne" (1541). As a theologian he need not concern us here; we need only say that, by the simplicity of his exposition, by the energy of his harsh and gloomy style, he effects an entrance into our literature for a whole range of subject-matters which had until then been reserved for Latin. Calvin was a teacher of the Reformation; Agrippa d'Aubigné was its soldier, but one who had taken the pen in hand. It was after long service in the field that he had composed his "Tragiques", a versified work unlike any other, a medley of satire and epic. Here the author presence a picture of France devastated by wars of religion, and paints his adversaries in odious colors. Now and then hatred inspires him with fine utterances. After all these struggles and all this violence, the age could not but long for peace, and could not but hold all these excesses in horror. Such a spirit inspires the "Satire Ménipée" (1594), a work, part prose, part verse, which, with its irony, gives evidence that an epoch has come to an end, fatigued with its own struggles and ready for a great renovation.

The Seventeenth Century: the Classical Age

The seventeenth century is the most noteworthy epoch in the history of French literature. The circumstances of the age, it is true, are peculiarly favorable for literary development. France is once more the strongest factor in European statecraft; her political influence is supreme, thanks to the wonderful achievements of her arms and the brilliant achievements of her diplomacy. Conscious of her greatness, she ceases to be dependent on foreign literatures, and fashions new literary forms which she bids other countries to copy. The internal peace which she enjoys favors the disinterested study of art and literature, without the need of giving her literary creations a social or political tendency. Authors are patronized by society and the court. Intellectual conditions are especially favorable; the national mind, steeped in the learning and culture of the classics, has become sufficiently strengthened to emancipate itself from the yoke of servile imitation. The language, capable henceforth of giving adequate expression to every shade of thought, has become clearly conscious of its power and is exclusively French in syntax and vocabulary. Such are the circumstances, such the elements which combine to form the genesis of the classical literature of France. It does not, indeed, claim to have determined the extreme limits beyond which literary activity in France may not range; progress will continue throughout the ages to come. But in the works of that period may be seen the most complete and perfect presentation of the distinguishing qualities of the French race; the ideal counterpart, in miniature, of the most perfect form of French literature.

It is characterized, in the main, by a tendency which seeks the apotheosis of human reason in the realm of literary activity, and regards the expression of moral truth as the end of literary composition. Hence the fondness of the literature of the seventeenth century for general ideas and for sentiments that are common to mankind, and its success in those kinds of literature which are based on the general study of the human heart. It reached perfection in dramatic literature, in sacred eloquence and in the study of morals. Hence the contempt of the seventeenth century literature for all that is relative, individual and mutable; in lyric poetry, which appeals primarily to the individual sentiment, in the description of material phenomena, and the external manifestations of nature, it falls short of success.

For thorough understanding of the development of French literature in the seventeenth century, we must consider it in three periods: (1) from the year 1600 to 1659, the period of preparation; (2) 1659-1688, the Golden Age of classicism; (3) 1688-1715, the period of transition between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

First Period (1600-1659)

With the followers of Ronsard and those poets who immediately succeeded him a kind of lassitude has seized upon poetry at the end of the sixteenth century; impoverished and spiritless, it handled only trifling subjects. Besides, having been long subject to the artistic domination of Italy, and having owed allegiance to Spain also since the intervention of the Spaniards in the days of the League, poetry had become infected with mannerisms, and suffered a considerable lowering of tone. A reform was necessary, and Malherbe, whose "Odes" appear between the years 1600 and 1628, undertook it. From the first he repudiated the idea of servile imitation of ancient classical authors; discrimination should be shown in borrowing from their writings, and imitation should be restricted to features likely to strengthen the thought. On the other hand, if the language of the sixteenth century was copious, many of its terms were not of the purest; these Malherbe severely interdicted. With regard to prosody, he lays down the strictest rules. Malherbe's reform, therefore, aims at purifying the terminology of the language, and fixing set forms of prosody. Unluckily, it must be secured at a heavy price; subordinated unduly to inflexible rule, its movement impeded, lyric poetry is finally crushed out of life. Two centuries must elapse before it revives and shakes off the yoke of Malherbe. Nor was the rule of Malherbe established without resistance. Of the writers of that time, none were less disposed to submit to it than Mathurin Régnier (1579-1613), a poet who in many ways recalls the sixteenth century. His satires are one long protest against the theory so dear to Malherbe. An enemy to rule and constraint, Régnier again and again insists upon the absolute freedom of the poet; the poet must write as the spirit moves him; let every writer be what he is, is the only principle he accepts. A numerous group of poets shared Régnier's views, those known by the name of les Grotesques. Such are Saint-Armant, Théophile de Viau, the direct heirs of the Pléiade; and Scarron, whose poetry is the very incarnation of the burlesque form imported from Italy.

Malherbe would perhaps have been unable to combat this opposition, had not two other forces come to his assistance in checking the flood of license that was spreading with Régnier and his associates. The first of these was the culture of French society. The rise of a cultured class, and of its life of refinement, which took place during the end of the reign of Henry IV, is one of the striking facts of the first half of the seventeenth century. A new institution, the salon, presided over by women, now makes its appearance; here men of the world meet literary men to discuss serious questions with women, The salon will prove of service to writers, though sometimes a hindrance or a lure to false paths, and the next two centuries of literature will show evidence of its influence. The first salon was that of the Marquise de Rambouillet; for more than twenty years people of superior intellect and culture were wont to gather there. By exacting from its guests refinement and elegant manners it contributed to chasten the language and to strip it of all low and grotesque words. It is in the salon that the over-refinement called preciosity budded and bloomed. However, the influence of the Précieuses was perhaps more harmless than some would have us believe. They have enriched the language with many clever expressions; they have helped to develop the taste for precision and subtilty in psychological analysis. They favoured also, though in an indirect way, that study of the human heart which was the grand theme of seventeenth century literature.

Authority also, as represented by Richelieu, enrolled itself in the crusade of reform and added its sanction to the new disciplinary laws. Under the patronage of the great minister, and by his inspiration, the French academy was founded in the year 1635. In virtue of its origin and its aims, the academy exerted officially the same influence as the salon. It watched over the purity of the language and over its regular development. One of its members, Vaguelas, the great grammarian of that age, contributed in an especial way toward this object. If the new ideal found its expression in poetry, prose was also soon to share in the advantages of the reform. Balzac, in his "Lettres" (1624), created French prose. He is said to have furnished the rules of French prose composition; in fact it is his chief merit to have taught his own age, along with the art of composition, what the greatest minds of the sixteenth century -- Rabelais and Montaigne -- had not known: the rhythm, the flow, and the harmony of the period. In this way, he has fashioned the magnificent form, which the great prose writers of the last half of the seventeenth century will find at their disposal when they seek to give outward shape to the sublime conceptions of their minds.

At the same time, Voiture, one of the habitués of the Hôtel de Rambouillet, gave to French prose its raciness, is vigour, and its ease of movement. Balzac and Voiture, of the great writers of the time, are masters of styles of the seventeenth century, but Descartes, whose "Discours de la Méthod" appeared in 1673, has left his mark deeply stamped on French classical literature. This could not be otherwise; the principles which gained distinction for him were the same as those invoked for the literary reform. But reason, whose sovereign authority Descartes proclaimed and whose power he demonstrated, was the same reason whose absolutism Malherbe sought to establish in literature. The abstract tone, the surety of inference proceeding directly to the solution of one or two questions clearly laid down, permitting no chance thoughts to lead it away from the straight line, the determination to take up only one subject, mastering it completely, to simplify everything, to see in man only and abstract soul, without a body, and in this soul not the phenomena, but the substance -- these are at the same time Cartesian principles and literary peculiarities of the seventeenth century.

The craving for order and uniformity which made itself felt in every branch of literature seized the theatrical world and achieved the masterpieces of the classic drama. In 1629, Jean Mairet produced his "Sophonisbe", in which the unities are for the first time observed -- unity of action, unity of time, unity of place. The plot turns on one incident which is tragic witjout a trace of the comic element, the action does not extend beyond one day, and tere is no change of scene. The framework of classical trahegy was created; what was needed was a writer of genius to fill in the structure. Corneille was this man in the merveille of "Le Cid", he gave to the French stage its first masterpiece. Lofty sentiments, strong dialogie, a brilliant style, and rapid action, not exceeding twenty-four hours were all combined in this play. While its subject was taken from modern history, Corneille, after the famous controversy on "Le Cid", stirred up by his jealous rivals, returned to subjects taken from Roman history for this later pieces, which date from 1640 to 1643, namely, "Horace", "Cinna", and "Polyeucte". In these the plot becomes more and more complicated; the poet prefers perpelexing and anomolous situations, and looks for variety and strangeness of incident to tyhe neglect of the snetimenst and the passions. the noble simplicityand serene beuarty which characterized his great works are replaced by the riddles of "Héraclius" and the extravagances of "Attila".

Corneille's "Polyeucte" shows reaces ofthe controversies on Divne Grace whihc at that time agitated the minds of men. Jansenism p[rofiundly influenced the entire litertaure of the sveneteenth century, gioving rise, first and foremost, to one of its prose masterpieces, the "Lettes provinciales" (1656-67) of Pascal. in these the author champions the cvause of his freunds of Port-Royal against the Jesuits. They display all of the quakities which it had taken sixty year sof progress in literature to develop: clearness of exposition, beauty iof form, elegance and distinction of style, a subtle wit, graceful irony, and geniality. diveested of all dull learning and all dialectic formalism, it placed within the reach of every serious mind the deepest theological questions. as far removed form the vigorous rhetorical of balzac as from the studied wit of Voiture, it embodied ion prose the greatest effort to reach perfection that we meet with in the earlky part of the seventeenth century.

Second Period (1659-88); the Great Epoch

Towards 1660 all the lliterary charactreitics which we have seen gradually developing in the previous sixty years have taken definite form. This is now reinforced by the influence of the court. After the short-lived trouble of Frande, one man embodies all the destinies of France: the king, Louis XIV, young, victorious, at the zenith of his glory. In literature, as in his government, the king will successfully carry out his taste for regularity, for harmony, and for nobility. The influence of his strong personality will check the tendencies toward the caprice, eccentricity, and imaginative waywardness that characterized the preceding period.

Henceforth nothing is appreciated in literature but what is reasonable, natural, and harmoniously proportionate, and what depicts the universal in man. Then follow in succession all those masterpieces which realise this idea, upheld by Boileau, the great law giver of classicism. Beginning in 1660, Boileau gave to the world his "Satires", his "Epistles", in which he shows himself a marvelous critic, unerring in his estimate of contemporary writers, and his "Art poétique" (1674), a literary code which held sway for more than a century. Seek the truth, be guided by reason, imitate nature -- these are the principles which Boileau never ceases to enjoin, and which his friends, Molière, Racine, La Fontaine, put into practice.

Molière, who, since 1653, had been playing in the provinces his first comedy, "L'Etourdi", produced the "Précieuses Ridicules" at Paris, in 1659, and until his death (1673) continued to produce play after play. To paint human life and to delineate character are the aims which Molière proposes to himself. Even his farces are full of points drawn from observation and study. In his great comedies it is clear that he rejects everything which is not based on a study of the heart. Molière is not concerned with plot and dénounement; each incident stands on its own merits; for him a comedy is but a succession of scenes whose aim is to place a character in the full light of day. Each of his characters is an exhaustive study of some particular failing or the comprehensive presentment of a whole type in a single physiognomy. Some of his best types are not characteristic of any one period -- the hypocrite, the miser, the coquette. It is Molière's undying merit that we cannot observe in our experience any of these characteristics without being reminded of some of Molière's originals.

In 1667, Racine, after his first attempts, the "Thébaïde" and "Alexandre", reproduced his "Andromaque", which achieved a success no less marked than that of the "Cid"; after that, scarcely a year passed without the production of a new work. After bringing out the "Phêdre" in 1677, Racine withdrew from the stage, partly from a desire for rest and partly on account of religious scruples. The only dramas produced by him in this last period were "Esther" (1689) and "Athalie" (1691). His tragedies were a reaction against the heroic and romantic drama which had prevailed during the first part of the century. He places on the stage the representation of reality; his plays have their source in reason rather than in imagination. The result is a loss of apparent grandeur, on the one hand, but also, on the other hand, an increased moral range and a wider psychology. Again, instead of the complicated action of which Corneille is so fond, Racine substitutes "a simple action, burdened with little incident, which, as it gradually advances towards its end, is sustained only by the interests, the sentiments, and the emotions of the characters" (preface to "Bérénice"). It is, accordingly, the study of character and emotion that we must look for in Racine. In "Britannicus" and "Athalie" he has painted the passion of ambition; but it is love which dominates his tragedies. The vigour, the vehemence, with which Racine has analysed this passion show what a degree of audacity may coexist with that classic genius of which he himself is the best example.

In some points of detail, La Fontaine, whose "Fables" began to appear in 1668, differs from the other great classics. He has a weakness for the old authors of the sixteenth century and even for those of the Middle Ages, for the words and phrases of a bygone time, and certain popular expressions. But he is an utter classic in the correctness and appropriateness of expression, in the nice attention to details of composition displayed in his "Fables" (a charming genre which he himself created), and in the added perfection of nature as he paints it. The winged grace with which he skims over every theme, his talent for giving life and interest to the actors in his fables, his consummate skill in handling verse -- all these qualities make him one of the great writers of the seventeenth century.

In this second period of the seventeenth century, all forms of literature bear their fine flower. In his "Maxims" (1665), the Duke de la Rochefoucald displays a profound knowledge of human nature, and an almost perfect literary style. The "Lettres" of Madame de Sévigné, the first of which bear the date of 1617, are marvels of wit, vivacity, and sprightliness. In his "Memoires" (completed in 1675) Cardinal de Retz furnishes us a model for this class of writing. In the "Princesse de Cléves" (1678) Madame de La Fayette created the psychological romance. Finally, it would be a misconception of the classical genius not to allow to religious inspiration a marked place in this period. The whole corpus of the seventeenth century was deeply penetrated by the spirit of religion. Few of its writers escaped that influence; and those who did, also remained outside the general current and the philosophic movement of the century. Pulpit oratory, too, reached a high degree of excellence. The first years of the century had been, so to say, fragrant with the oratory of that most lovable of saints, Francis de Sales (1567-1622). He had, in 1602, preached the Lenten sermons before Henry IV at the Louvre, and ravished his hearers by the unction of his discourse, overflowing with a wealth of pleasing imagery. The religious revival was then universal; orders were founded or reformed. Among them the Oratorians, like the Jesuits, produced more than one remarkable and vigorous preacher. The Jansenists, in their turn, introduced in pulpit eloquence a sober style without any great wealth of fancy, without vivacity or brilliancy, but simple, grave, uniform. Thus, sacred eloquence, already flourishing before 1660, gradually rid itself of the defects from which it had suffered in the preceding period: the trivialities, the tawdry refinements, the abuse of profane learning. It was especially during the brilliant period extending from 1659 to 1688 that Christian eloquence reached its greatest power and perfection, when its two most illustrious representatives were Bossuet and Bourdaloue.

In 1659 Bossuet preached in Paris, at the Minims, his first course of Lenten sermons; during the next ten years his mighty voice was heard pouring forth eloquent sermons, panegyrics, and funeral orations. Animated, earnest, and familiar in his sermons, sublime in his funeral orations, simple and lucid in theological expositions, he always carried out the principle, embodied in a celebrated definition, "of employing the word only for the thought, and the thought for truth and virtue". Not only is he a magnificent orator, the greatest that ever occupied the pulpit in France, but he is also, perhaps, the writer who has had the most delicate appreciation of the French language. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that Bossuet, in his "Discourse on Universal History" (1681) did the work of a historian. He is, indeed, the only historian of the seventeenth century. In the art of investigating historical causes, he is a master of exceptional penetration, and his conclusions have been confirmed by the most recent discoveries of historical science. He founded the philosophy of history, and Montesquieu, in the following century, had but little to add to his work. Bourdaloue, who ascended the pulpit left vacant by Bossuet (1669), is a very different man. In Bourdaloue we do not find the abruptness and familiarity Bossuet, but an unbroken evenness, a style always regular and symmetrical, above all a logician; he appeals to the reason rather than to the imagination and the sensibilities.

From 1688 to 1715

In the short space of eighteen years classical literature was in its glory. It resulted from the equilibrium between all the forces of society and all the faculties of the mind, an equilibrium not destined to last long. If, during the last years of the century, the great writers still living preserve their powers unimpaired to the end, we feel, nonetheless, that new forces are forming. In 1688, the king, aged and absorbed by the cares of his foreign policy, ceased to take his former interest in literature. Discipline becomes relaxed. The salon, which for a while had been eclipsed by the Court, gradually regained its ascendancy. Under its influence, preciosity, which had disappeared during the great period of classicism, began to revive. This becomes evident in a department in which it would seem the précieux would have but little interest, that of sacred eloquence. Fléchier marks an inordinate propensity to wit and frivolities of language. Massillion, who is Fléchier's heir, lacks the fine equilibrium between thought and form which was found in Bossuet. He is a wonderful rhetorician who sacrifices too much to the adornments of style. Besides, the conception of style prevalent from 1659 to 1688 underwent a change. In the writers of the golden age the period was, perhaps, somewhat too long, but it was broad and spacious, effectively reproducing the movements of the thought; it was now replaced by a shorter phrase, more rapid and more incisive. This new style is that of the "Caractéres"; these, too, distinguish it from the work of the preceding period. The same artistic qualities are also found in Saint-Simon, who did not write his "Mémoires" until after 1722, the materials for which he had been collecting since 1696. He is a writer, however, who from many points of view is connected with the seventeenth century. Saint-Simon not only gives a moral portrait of the person dealt with in his "Mémoires", but by dint of violent colours, of contrasting touches, daring figures combined into a brutal, incorrect, passionate, and feverish style, he reproduces the physical man to the life. In dramatic literature comedy follows the same tendencies. After Molière, and after Regnard, who imitated him, the comedy of character comes to an end, and with Dancourt (1661-1725), the comedy of manners, which has its inspiration in the actual, replaces it. Lastly, Fénelon introduces into literature a spirit utterly foreign to the pure classics, so reverent of tradition -- the spirit of novelty. Télémaque (1699), a romance imitated from antiquity, records the views of the author on government, foreshadows the eighteenth century, and its mania for reform.

The Eighteenth Century

To do justice to the writers of the eighteenth century, we must change our point of view. In truth, the eighteenth century's conception of literature differed profoundly from that of the great writers of the time of Louis XIV. The eighteenth century, moreover, never rises above mediocrity when it attempts to follow in the footsteps of the seventeenth, but is always interesting when it breaks loose from it. To follow its literary development, we must divide it, like the preceding century, into three periods: (1) 1715-50; (2) 1750-89; (3) 1789-1800.

From 1715 to 1750

After the death of Louis XIV, the tendencies which already manifested themselves in the last period of the seventeenth century became more marked. The classical ideal became more and more distorted and weakened. Consequently, all the great branches of literature which flourished by following this ideal either decay of are radically modified. The tragic vein in particular is completely exhausted. After Racine, there are no longer any great writers of tragedy, but only imitators, of whom the most brilliant is Voltaire, whose versatility fits him for every kind of literature. Comedy shows more vitality than tragedy. With Dancourt it has taken the direction of portrayal of manners in their most fleeting aspects, and the tendency betrays itself in Lesage (1688-1747). "Turcaret", which places on the stage not a character, but a condition in life -- that of the financier, is a piece of direct, profound, and merciless observation. Applying the same methods to romantic literature Lesage wrote "Gil Blas", which first appeared in 1715, and in which, in spite of a peculiar method of narration, borrowed from Spain, the manners and the society of the time are drawn to the life. Thus "Gil Blas" inaugurates in French literature the romance of manners. The most original of the writers of comedy in this period, however, is Marivaux, who, between 1722 and 1740, produced his charming works, "La surprise de l'amour", "Le jeu de l'amour et du hasard", "Le Legs", "Les fausses confidences", etc. The utmost refinement in the analysis of love -- a love that is timid and scrupulous -- propriety in the setting of his works, a subtile wit bearing the stamp of good society, grace and delicacy of feeling -- these are the distinguishing characteristics of Marivaux.

But if the great classical types are exhausted or fall to pieces giving birth to new forms, literature is compensated by the enlargement of its domain in some directions, absorbing new sources of inspiration. Writers turn away from the consideration of man as a moral unit; on the other hand they devote themselves to the study of man regarded as a product of the changing conditions of the State, political, social, and religious. In fact, this new direction of literary activity is favoured by the birth of what has been called "the philosophic spirit". After the death of Louis XIV, the severe restraint upon men's intellects was at an end. Respect for authority and for the social hierarchy, submission to the dictates of religion -- these were things never questioned by any of the seventeenth century writers. From the earliest years of the eighteenth century, on the contrary, an aggressive movement against every form of authority, spiritual as well as temporal, becomes perceptible. This twofold disposition -- curiosity about human idiosyncrasies as they vary with times, places, environments, and governments, and a spirit of unfettered criticism -- is met with in Montesquieu, chronologically the first of the great writers of the eighteenth century. Montesquieu, indeed, does not manifest any destructive inclination in regard to government and religion; nevertheless, the the "Lettres persanes" (1721), there is a tone of satire previously unknown. Montesquieu shows himself the disciple of La Broyère, but does not hesitate to discuss subjects from which his master would have been obliged to refrain; social problems, the royal power, the papacy. The "Lettres persanes" is a pamphlet rather than the work of a moralist. They make an epoch in the history of French literature, marking the first appearance of the political satire. But the two truly great works of Montesquieu are the "Considérations sur la grandeur et la décadence des Romains" (1734), and the "Esprit des Lois" (1748). In the "Considérations", Montesquieu, by undertaking to explain the succession events by the power of ideas, the character of the people, the action and reaction of cause and effect, inaugurated an historical method unknown to his predecessors -- certainly not to Bossuet, who was the most illustrious of them. From the "Considérationes" the whole movement of modern historical study was to draw its inspiration later on. In the "Esprit des Lois", his studies how laws are evolved under the influences of government, climate, religion, and manners. On all these subjects, in spite of certain errors of detail, he threw a light that was altogether new.

With Montesquieu, jurisprudence, politics, and sociology made their entrance into literature. With Buffon, science has its turn. Already Fontenelle, in his "Entretiens surf la pluralité des Mondes" had popularized the most difficult astronomical theories. Buffon, in his "Histoire naturelle", the first volumes of which appeared in 1749, set forth the ideas of his time on geology and biological species in a style that is brilliant and highly coloured, but somewhat studied in its magnificence. No doubt Buffon's descriptions are written in a pompous, ambition style ill-suited to the severity of a scientific subject, and they are too often interlarded with commonplaces. It is none the less true that in introducing natural history into literature he exercised a considerable influence; from Buffon, who set forth nature in its various aspects, a number of writers were to issue. The consequence of this broadening of literature was the loss of the purely speculative and disinterested character which it displayed in the seventeenth century, when the sole aim of the writer had been production of a beautiful work and the inculcation of certain moral truths. The writers of the eighteenth century, on the contrary, wish to spread in society the philosophical and scientific theories they have adopted, and this diffusion is effected in the salons. From the beginning of the century the salons, formed from the debris of Louis XIV's court, has assumed a considerable importance. First, it was the little court of the Duchesse du Maine, at Sceaux, and the salon of the Marquise de Lambert, at Paris. Later on, other salons were opened, those of Mme Geoffrin, Mme du Deffnd, Mlle de Lespinasse. These salons in their day represented public opinion, and the authors wrote to influence the views of those who frequented them. Moderately perceptible in the first half of the century, this tendency of literature to become an instrument of propaganda and even of controversy became bolder in the second.

From 1750 to 1789

Voltaire is one of the first to mark the character of this period. Of the writers who flourished about the middle of the eighteenth century, the greatest glory surrounds Voltaire (1694-1778). The kind of intellectual sovereignty which he enjoyed, not only in France by throughout Europe, is attributable to his great talent as a writer of prose as well as to his great versatility. There is no literary form -- tragedy, comedy, epic poetry, tales in prose, history, criticism, or philosophy -- in which he did not practise with more or less success. It has been said of him that he was only "second in every class", and again that he is the "first of mediocrities". Though paradoxically expressed, these verdicts are partial truths. In no branch of literature was Voltaire an originator in the full sense of the word. A man of varied gifts, living at a time when thought extended its domain in every direction and took hold of every novelty, he is the most accomplished and the most brilliant of the popularizers. In the early part of his career, from 1717 to 1750, he confines himself almost entirely to purely literary work; but after 1750 his writings assume the militant character which henceforth distinguishes French literature. In his historical works, such as the "Siècle de Louis Quatorze" (1751) and the "Essai sur le Moeurs" (1756), he became a controversialist, assailing in his narrative the Church, her institutions, and her influence on the course of events. Finally, the "Dictionnaire philosophique" (1764) and a number of treatises dealing with both philosophy and exegesis, which Voltaire gave to the world between 1763 and 1776, are wholly devoted to religious polemics. But, while Voltaire shows his hostility to religion, he attacks neither political authority, nor the social hierarchy; he is conservative, not revolutionary, in this respect. With Diderot and the Encyclopedists, however, literature becomes frankly destructive of the established order of things. Like Voltaire, Diderot is one of the most prolific writers of the eighteenth century, producing in turn romances, philosophical treatises tending toward atheism, essays in art-criticism, dramas. But it is only in productiveness that Diderot can be compared with Voltaire, for he has none of Voltaire's admirable literary gifts. He is above all an improvisatore, and, with the exception of some pages which are remarkable for movement and colour, his work is confused and uneven. His principle production is the "Encyclopedia", to which the author devoted the greatest part of his life; the first two volumes appeared in 1751. The aim of this bulky publication was to give a summary of science, art, literature, philosophy and politics, up to the middle of the eighteenth century. To bring this enterprise to a successful issue, Diderot, who reserved to himself the greatest part of the work, called to his assistance numerous collaborators, amongst whom were Voltaire, Buffon, Montesquieu, D'Alembert and Condillac. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was entrusted with the department of music. Despite the assistance of talents so diverse, the same spirit breathes throughout the work. In philosophy, the Encyclopedists seek to subvert the principles on which the existing institutions and the authority of dogma in religion were based. The Encyclopedia, therefore, which embodies all the opinions of that age, is a work of destruction. However that may be, its influence was considerable; it served as a rallying-point for the philosophers, and by acting on public opinion, as Diderot had intended, came to "change the common way of thinking".

The Encyclopedia wrought the ruin of society, but proposed nothing to take its place; Jean-Jacques Rousseau dreamed of effecting its re-constitution on a new plan. On certain points, Rousseau breaks with the philosophes and the Encyclopedists. both of these believed in the sovereignty of reason., not, as was the case in the seventeenth-century writers, with reason subject to faith and controlled by it, but with reason absolute, universal, and refusing to admit what eludes its deductions -- that is to say, the truths revealed by religion. They also believed in the omnipotence of science, in human progress and in civilization guided by reason and science. Rousseau on the contrary, in his first notable work, "Discours sur les sciences et les arts" (1751), assails reason and science, and in a certain sense denies progress. On the other hand, in maintaining the natural goodness of man he approaches the philosophes. in his opinion, society has perverted man, who is by nature good and virtuous, has replaced primitive liberty with despotism, and brought inequality amongst men. society, therefore, is evil; being so, it must be abolished, and men must return to the state of nature, that happiness may reign among them. this return to the natural state Rousseau preaches in his romance, "La nouvelle Héloïse" (1760), in his work on education, "Emile" (1762), lastly in the "Contrat social" (1762) which was to become the Gospel of the Revolution.

From the publication of his first work, Rousseau won a success that was immediate and startling. This was because he brought qualities which were entirely novel or which had long been forgotten. With him eloquence returns to literature. Leaving aside his influence on the movement of politics, we must give him credit for all that the French literature of the nineteenth century owes to him. Rousseau, by causing a reaction against the philosophy of his time, prepared the revival of religious sentiment. It was he who, by signalizing in his most beautiful pages the emotions awakened in him by certain landscapes, aroused in the popular imagination the feeling for nature. Rousseau, too, by his thoroughly plebeian manner of parading his personality and displaying his egotism, helped to develop that sentiment of individualism, whence sprang the lyric poetry of the nineteenth century. He is also responsible for some of the most regrettable characteristics of nineteenth-century literature -- for that melancholy and unrest that has been termed "the distemper of the age", and which was originally the distemper of the hypochonandriacal Jean-Jacques; for the revolt against society; for the belief that passion has rights of its own and dominates the lives of mortals as a fatal compulsion.

The close of the eighteenth century is from some points of view a time of regeneration, and forebodes a still more radical and complete transformation of literature in the immediate future. Some branches of literature that had been neglected in the course of the century receive new life and energy. Since Lesage's "Turcaret" and after Marivaux, comedy had hardly produced anything above the commonplace; it revives in the amusing "Barbier de Séville" (1775) of Beaumarchais, full of life and rapid movement. Beaumarchais owes much to his predecessors, to Molière, Regnard, and many others. His originality as a playwright consists in the political and social satire with which his comedies are filled. In this respect they are the children of the eighteenth century, especially combative. In the "Barbier de Séville" the impertinent Figaro rails at the privileges of the aristocracy. In the "Mariage de Figaro" the satire becomes more violent; the famous monologue of the fifth act is a bitter invective against the aristocracy, against the inequality of social conditions and the restrictions imposed on liberty of thought.

Finally, with André Chénier, lyric poetry revives, after the neglect of the eighteenth century, which had looked upon verse-writing as a mere diversion and a frivolous toying with syllables. By returning to an ancient and especially Greek models, in his "Eclogues" and his "Elégies" (1785-91), Chester begins by bringing into his poetry a new note; at the very outset he renews Ronsard's experiment; later on the Revolution affords him a more vigorous inspiration. In presence of the horrors of the Terror, stirred up by wrath and impelled by indignation, he composed his "Iambles" (1794). In recovering the sincerity of emotion and gravity of thought which were wanting to the versifiers of the eighteenth century (John-Baptiste Rousseau, Delille and even Voltaire), André Chénier restored to French poetry the true voice of the lyre.

From 1789 to 1800

In the throes of the Revolution there is an abundance of writing, but these works, mere imitations of great writers who flourished during the century, are valueless; the sole author of note is Chénier (d. 1974). It is true that under the influence of events, a new literary genre arises, that of political eloquence. The isolated protestations of the States-General under the monarchy afforded no opportunity for public speaking; it was in other modes, notably through the pulpit, that the eloquence for which a strictly appropriate platform was lacking must perforce manifest itself in that period. But the great revolutionary assemblies favoured the development of remarkable oratorical gifts. The most famous among the orators -- and he was one who really possessed genius -- was Mirabeau. The blemishes of his style -- a congeries of violent contrasts -- the incoherency of his figures and the discordance of his shades of meaning -- all these defects vanished in the mighty onrush of his eloquence, swept away in an overmastering current of oratorical inspiration.

The Nineteenth Century

It is yet too early to attempt the task of determining the due place of the nineteenth century in the literary history of France; the men and affairs of the century are still near to us, and in the study of literature a true perspective can be obtained only from a certain distance. A few general characteristics, however, may be taken as already fairly ascertained.

The nineteenth was one of renascence in literature: in it, following immediately upon great events, a great intellectual movement came into being, and at one definitely assignable movement there appeared a splendid efflorescence of genius; most of all this movement was a renascence because it rid itself of those theories, adopted by the preceding century, which had been the death of that century's impoverished literature. Imagination and feeling reappear in literature, and out of these qualities lyric poetry and the romance develop.

At the same time the sciences, daily acquiring more importance, exercise a greater influence on thought, so that minds take a new mould.

We may distinguish three periods in the nineteenth century: the first, the period of preparation, is that of the First Empire; the second, that of intellectual efflorescence, extends from 1820 to 1850; lastly, the modern period, which seems to us in these days less brilliant because the works produced in it have not yet attained the prestige that comes with age.

From 1800 to 1820

Chateaubriand is the great originator of nineteenth-century French literature; from him proceed nearly the whole line of nineteenth-century writers. In 1802 appeared his "Génie du Christianisme"; in this work Chateaubriand not only defends Christianity, toward which the intellectuals of the eighteenth century had been vaguely hostile -- not only shows that Christianity is the greatest source of inspiration to the letters and the arts -- but also sets forth certain literary theories of his own. He asserts the necessity of breaking with classical tradition, which has had its day and is exhausted, and of opening a new way for art. This is one of the great ideas developed by this author and thenceforth all is over with Classicism. But Chateaubriand's work and his influence were not limited to this; constantly calling attention to the interest offered by the study of the Middle Ages, as he does in "La Génie de Christianisme", he engages both history and poetry new directions. On the other side, where he displays his own personal sufferings in "Renè" (1805), he develops the sentiment of the Ego, already affirmed by Rousseau, from which modern lyricism springs. Lastly, in the many beautiful passages of "Les Martyrs", or of his description of travels, he furnishes models of a magnificent prose style, full of color, rythmical, well-fitted to reproduce the most brilliant aspects of nature and to express the deepest emotions of the heart.

Side by side with Chateaubriand, another great figure dominates this first period, that of Madame de Staël. Where Chateaubriand personifies the reaction against the eighteenth century, Mme. de Staël, on the contrary, is the incarnation of eighteenth-century traditions. Here is the school of the Idéologues, lineal representatives of the Encyclopedists. And yet in many respects she must be regarded as an innovator. In her book, "De la Littérature", she lays the foundation of that modern literary criticism which aims to study each work in its own particular conditions of origin. In her "Considérations sur la Revolution française" (1818) she is the first to inquire into the causes of that great social effect, thus leading the way where many of the great historians of the nineteenth century are to follow. Lastly, in her principal work, "De l'Allemagne" (1810), she reveals to France a whole literature then unknown to that country, the influence of which is to make itself felt in the Romantic writers.

From 1820 to 1850

In this period those literary ideas in which the germs had been placed in Chateaubriand found their fullest expression with the romantic school. Almost all the writers whose works appeared between 1820 and 1850 were connected with this school. Its theories may best be defined as the opposite of Classicist doctrine. The Classicists were idealists; they held that art should above all be the representation of the beautiful; the romantics were now about to claim from the municipality of literature a full license to give public representations of hideous and grotesque things.

The Classics hold that reason is the ruling faculty in poetry; the Romantics protest in the name of imagination and fantasy. The Classics go to antiquity for the models of their art and the sources of their inspiration; the Romantics are inspired by contemporary foreign literatures, by Goethe, Schiller, and Byron; they will reach the point of swearing by the example of Shakespeare as men in the seventeenth century swore by the words of Aristotle. For pagan mythology they will substitute the Christian art of the Middle Ages, will extol the Gothic cathedrals and put the troubadours in place of the rhapsodists. The same system applies in respect to form: where the classic prized clarity and precision above all things, the Romantics will seek rather glitter and colour, and carry their taste for effect, for contrast, and for antithesis to the point of mania.

Though the Romantic doctrine had its manifestations in every form of literature, its first applications were in poetry. Lamartine, with the publication of his "Méditations poétiques" (1820) gave the signal for the movement, and presented the first monument of modern lyricism. In this collection of his and in those which followed -- "Nouvelles Méditations" (1823), "Harmonies poétiques et religieuses" (1830) -- we find a combination of all those qualities the lack of which had kept the versifiers of the preceding century from being true poets. The expansion of the man's own individual nature, the religious faith which makes him see Divine manifestations in everything, his disquiet in presence of great problems of human destiny, his deep and serious love, his intimate communion with nature, his dreamy melancholy -- these are the great sentiments from which Lamartine's lyricism has its origins.

If Lamartine is the earliest of the Romantics, the real chief of the new school is Victor Hugo, whose career, from 1822 to 1885, extends over the whole century, but who by his inspiration belonged to the period (1820-1850) which we are now considering. Not only has he endeavoured to define the romantic ideal in many of his prefaces, but he has set himself to realize it all departments of literature, no less in romance and drama than in poetry. Still, it is in the last that he has produced his finest works. With him, however, lyricism results less from the outpouring of his inmost feelings and his Ego than from a masterly faculty which he has of concentrating his mind upon events taking place around him -- events public and private -- of listening to their reverberations, their echoes within himself, and translating these echoes into strophes of incomparable amplitude, magnificence, and diversity of movement. In a later period, this impersonal lyricism, which has dictated all his poetical works from 1831 to 1856, gives pl;ace to another inspiration, the product of which is "La Légende des Siècles" (1859-76). This vast epic of humanity, viewed in its great moments, is, perhaps, a unique work in French literature; at any rate it is the work in which Victor Hugo has most thorough;y realized his genius -- a genius compact of imagination that exaggerates beings and things beyond all measure, of art mighty to describe, to paint, and to evoke, and a marvelous gift for creating images.

Very different from both Lamartine and Victor Hugo is Alfred de Musset (1810-57). In his poetical works as well as his prose dramas (Comédies et proverbes), Musset exhibits some qualities which are not apparent in his great predecessors, elegance, lightness of touch, wit. On the other hand, he has neither Victor Hugo's variety of inspiration not Lamartine's elevation of thought. He is characterized by the profound, sincere, penetrating emotion by which he expresses the inmost sufferings of his stricken and harassed soul. The peculiarity of Alfred de Vigny (1797-1863), another great poet of this period, is that, unlike most of the Romantics, who are not rich in ideas, he is a thinker. A philosophical poet, he fills his verses, not with sensations, emotions, and personal confidences, but with ideas translated into symbols ("Poèms anciens et modernes"; "Les Destinés") which express his pessimistic conception of life. As for Théophile Gautier, while his youthful enthusiasms and his extreme taste for the picturesque connect him with the Romantics, he parts company with them in a conception of poetry (Emaux et Camées, 1852), wherein he makes no exhibition either of his Ego or of its sentimental outpourings, but keeps to the work of rendering the aspect of things outside himself with a painter's fidelity and resources of colouring. Thus his lyricism forms a transition between that of the Romantics and that of the Parnassien school which is to succeed them.

The great ambition of Romanticism was to be supreme in the drama as well as in poetry. Indeed it was in the theatre that the great battle was fought in which, between 1820 and 1830, the partisans of the new school encountered the belated defenders of the classical ideal. But while in lyric poetry Romanticism succeeded in creating veritable masterpieces, it was almost a failure in the drama. In 1827, victor Hugo, in his preface to "Cromwell", expounds the new dramatic system: no more unities, but absolute liberty for the author to develop his action just as he conceives it; the mingling of the tragic and the comic, which the Classics abhor, is authorized and even recommended; no more dreams; no more minor characters introduced into the piece solely that the hero may explain the plot to them for the benefit of the audience; on the other hand, there was to be an historical setting, local colour, complicated accessories, and authentic costuming. Lastly, Shakespeare, Goethe, and Schiller are the masters to imitate, not Corneille and Racine. This resounding preface was followed by a succession of works in which the authors endeavoured to apply its theories. There is "Henri III et sa Cour" (1829), by Alexander Dumas, père, full of animation but infantile in its psychology and written in a bad, melodramatic style; Alfred de Vigny contributes "Le More de Venise" (1829) and "La Maréchale d'Ancre" (1830); last comes Victor Hugo's own series of dramas in verse and prose, "Hernani" (1830), "Marion de Lorme" (1831), "Le roi s'amuse" (1832), "Ruy Blas" (1838), "Les Burgraves" (1843). These pieces are characterized by a wealth of extraordinary incident -- by dark intrigues, duels, assassinations, poisoning, ambuscades, abductions; their historical setting, above all, is a feast for the eyes. Solid foundation there is none; historical truth and logical action are utterly lacking. The dramas of Victor Hugo survive and still bear staging only because the author has lavished upon them all the resources of his lyricism.

As for Comedy, it was neglected by the romantics -- for Musset's delicious, and often profound, little pieces were not made to be acted. From 1820 to 1850 the comic stage was dominated by an author who was altogether outside the romantic movement, Scribe, a prolific writer of vaudevilles with no power of vital observation, but a great command of sustained plot.

The romance, which had been neglected by the great writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, in this period takes a foremost place in literature. Here again we find the influence of Romanticism, though that influence clashes with other tendencies. In the historical romance, imitated from Walter Scott, it is supreme. Alfred de Vigny's "Cinq Mars" (1826) and Victor Hugo's "Notre-Dame de Paris" (1831) are distinctly Romantic in the local colour which their authors employ and the violently dramatic character of their plots. The same characteristics appear in the innumerable romances of Alexander Dumas, père, which, although no means strong in literary quality, give pleasure by their fecundity of invention (Les Trois Mousquetaires, 1844). Again, the romances of George Sand, at least those written in her first manner, are of the Romantic school by virtue of their lyrical exaltation of the Ego, their elaborate display of sentiment, and of passion exaggerated to the degree of paroxysm ("Indiana", 1832). Her heroines are possessed by the restlessness, the unsatisfied longings, the anguish of soul which Renè suffered. George Sand, however, was to abandon Romanticism at a later period, in her romances of country life ("La Mare au Diable", "François le Champi", etc., from 1844 to 1850), idealized pictures of peasant life and true masterpieces of their class.

But if George Sand's career was half finished before she started with romanticism, other writers in this department altogether escaped its influence, abiding by the traditions of the eighteenth century. Benjamin Constance, in "Adolphe", carries on the line of romances of psychological analysis. Stendahl, too, who inherited his odes and his precise, dry style from the philosophes of the eighteenth century, is a subtile psychologist, sometimes penetrating, often affected. Little appreciated in his own day, he will exert a great influence in the second half of the nineteenth century. Mérimée very much resembles Stendahl; he excels in the art of fitting into the frame of a short novel a finished picture of his frame of action, with clean-cut, vigorous indications of his characters. And Balzac, the great master of the romance in this period, owes almost nothing to Romanticism. A peer of the creative geniuses -- the Shakespeare and Molières -- Balzac could set in motion, in his "Comédie Humaine", an imaginary world of beings as truly living as the flesh-and-blood beings who people the actual world. Certain of his characters, while animated with an intensely individual life, present, at the same time, so universal a portraiture as to constitute veritable types corresponding to the great passions and sentiments of humanity.

Among the great branches of literature which were restored between 1820 and 1850 history and criticism must be reckoned. At the beginning of the nineteenth century history could hardly be said to exist. The philosophical tendencies which it had acquired during the eighteenth century wee prejudicial to its exactitude. But what it lacked to a still more marked degree was the power of realizing the past -- in other words the power of imagination -- combined with the critical spirit. Romanticism supplied it with the former of these requisites, which developed so fast in the first half of the nineteenth century; the latter it borrows from the sciences, which developed so fast in the first part of the nineteenth century and impressed the mind of that age with their vigorous methods. Of the historians of that period, some attach the greater importance to the critical study and interpretation of the facts, others devote themselves to reconstructing the features of the past, with all its colour and picturesque quality. To the former school belong Guizot, who traces the concatenation of facts, showing what causes -- political, social and religious -- produced them; Thiers, who in his "Le Consulat l'Empire", lays bare Napoleon's policy and strategy with remarkable lucidity; Mignet, who excels in the art of singling out the essential features of an epoch. Augustin Thierry and Michelet belong to the other school. Thierry possesses in a rare degree the sense of historical verity, and his "Récits des Temps Mérovingiens" (1838) is the first example in French literature of a picturesque history which is at the same time founded upon exact erudition. Lastly, with Michelet, history becomes in very truth, a resurrection of the past. Powerfully imaginative, indeed a poet by instinct, Michelet rather conjures up history than relates it. His "Histoire de France" is a canvas in which he has in marvellous fashion caused persons, feelings, and manners to live again.

Concurrently with history, and under the same influences, literary criticism puts on a new physiognomy. It is no longer theoretic; henceforth its principle concern is not to judge the merits of literary works, but to determine the conditions in which they have been elaborated. It is personified in Sainte-Beuve (1804-69), who traces a detailed biography and a careful portrait of each writer and, reconstructing his appearance and character in a thousand scrupulously verified particulars, seeks thus to explain his works.

Lastly, the religious renascence which took place at the beginning of the century, after the revolutionary frenzy, and which, in profane literature, gave Chateaubriand and Lamartine their inspiration, had the effect of giving back its force and brilliancy to sacred literature, so impoverished in the eighteenth century. Theological controversy reappeared with Lamennais, a remarkable writer with a violent imagination and a style characterized by its strong reliefs ("Essai sur l'indifférence en matière de religion", 1817; "Paroles d'un croyant", 1834). At the same time Père Lacordaire lifted the multitude out of itself with his fiery discourses, and imported into the pulpit eloquence the burning lyricism of the romantics.

From 1850 to the End of the Century

This period seems confused to our present view, which, with its necessarily short focus, can hardly distinguish all the dormant tendencies. Still, speaking very generally, it may be said that the period was marked by a reaction against the lyricism of the Romantics, a return to the study of reality, and lastly, the coming of Positivism, through the influence of Renan and Taine, two philosophers who acted powerfully upon most writers of their time.

In poetry these tendencies have expressed themselves in the theories and the works of Parnassian poets, so called because the first collection of their verses appear (in 1866) under the title "Parnasse contemporain". The Parnassian poetry is characterized, in the first place, by great striving after impersonality, the writer making it is object to avoid putting into his work anything of his own personal emotion; and next, anxious to be before all things an artist, the writer carries to excess the effort to attain perfection of form. The chief of the Parnassian school was Laconte de l'Isle (1820-1894); he does not take himself as the theme of his "Poèmes antiques" (1853) or his "Poèmes barbares" (1862); his theme is the history of humanity. His work is at once learned, epical, and philosophical. Others belonging to the Parnassian school, though each with his own personality, are: J. M. de Hérédia (1842-1905), an immediate disciple of Laconte de l'Isle, who has managed to produce a complete picture of some epoch in each of the sonnets of his "Trophées" (1893); Sully-Prudhomme, both poet of the interior life and poet philosopher; François Coppée, whose true originality consists in being the poet of the common people and of their everyday life. In reaction against certain tendencies of the Parnassians there appeared in the last quarter of the nineteenth century the Symbolist poets, grouped around Paul Verlaine (1844-1896), who in some points of view recalls Villon, and Stéphanie Mallarmé (1842-1898). It is as yet difficult to define the action and the degree of importance of these Symbolist poets, who, moreover, made a merit of being obscure. At present Parnassism and Symbolism seem to have been reconcilled in the person of M. Henri de Régnier (b. 1864). We may mention, also, among the poets of to-day, M. Jean Richepin, a belated Romantic.

In the second half of the nineteenth century the romance developed to an extent even more considerable than in the first. It tends to engulf all other literary forms and and becomes itself the only department of literature. It is a convenient frame successively for historical pictures, studies of passion, pictures of manners, and moral theories. The same tendencies appear in it as we have already noted in the period from 1820 to 1850, with, however, this notable difference, that the realistic current becomes much stronger. This time the originator and master is Gustave Flaubert, author of one of the masterpieces of all romance, "Madame Bovary" (1857). The peculiar characteristic of Flaubert is his combination of the elements of romanticism with those of Realism. For him the great Romantic masters -- Chateaubriand, Victor Hugo -- are the object of a special cult; on another side, by his conception of art, Flaubert is a Realist. In the first place he does not admit the propriety of a writer's putting himself into his work; the work must be objective, impersonal, impassive. In the second place he makes it his task to paint life as it is, or as he sees it, whatever there may be in it of unlovliness and of vulgarity. This theory of the romance is in evidence in all his works, as much as in a study of provincial bourgeois life, like "Madame Bovary", as in a picture of Paris life, like "l'Education sentimentale", or a reconstruction of a vanished civilization, like "Salammbô" (1862).

From Flaubert's example and from the misinterpretation of Positivist theories issued the Naturalist school. This again was realism, but realism publishing far and wide its own scientific pretentions and seeking to assimilate the processes of literature to those of science. The leader, and the theorist of naturalism was Emile Zola (1840-1902), a writer whose gift was compounded of strength and triviality, and whose books ("Les Rougon-Macquart", a series of romances from 1871 to 1893), are tainted with an unpardonable coarseness. To the naturalist school belong the Goncourt brothers who have sought to express reality by the aid of a bizarre, tortured, and pedantic vocabulary, and Guy de Maupassant (1850-1893), whose powers of observation, his intensity of vision, and a robust style borrowed from the finest traditions place him among the best writers of this group. Alphonse Daudet (1840-97), another writer who aims to portray life as it is, nevertheless stands apart from naturalism by virtue of his own peculiar qualities of sensibility, fancy, and irony. If he has painted Parisian life ("Le Nabab", 1879), he has nonetheless succeeded in describing the destinies of the lowly with a sympathetic tenderness.

In spite of the encroaching Realist tendencies, the idealist and Romantic romance, in the manner of George Sand, survived with Octave Feuillet (1821-91), a dainty writer who embodies in a wonderful degree the type of the fashionable story-teller. However, after 1885, although Realism is still the inspiration of most French fiction, Naturalism, with its exaggerations, its deliberate determination to be coarse, its narrow and brutal æsthetics, loses ground and soon falls into disrepute. The traditions of the romance of psychological analysis reappear with M. Paul Bourget, who following the example of Octave Feuillet, chooses fashionable life as the setting of his stories. In recent years, M. Bourget has broadened his manner and attacked the great moral and social problems of the hour ("L'Etape", 1902; "Un divorce", 1904; "L'Emigré", 1907). M. Eduoard Rod, a Swiss by birth, has undertaken in his romances to deal with questions of conscience. On another side, by way of reaction against the crass dogmatism of Zola and his school, a certain number of writers, with a talent for playing upon fine shades of meaning and a very especial taste for crowding contrary ideas together, have taken a delight in filling their romances with a subtile and penetrating irony. The master of this school is M. Anatole France. M. Maurice Barrès, who holds from Stendahl, was, in his earlier career, of the ironical school, but has more recently applied himself to demonstrating the influence of native soil and tradition ("Les Déracinés", 1807). Another class of story writers has exerted itself to increase the field of romance, which, with the naturalists, had well nigh been shut up within the limits of Parisian life. Some, like M. Pierre Loti, marvellous at evoking the impression of far distant lands, have imported an exotic atmosphere; others have sought to reproduce with sympathetic fidelity the manners of their native provinces. This latter has been done for Anjou and the Vendée, with much elevation of thought and elegance of style, by M. Bazin (La Terre qui meurt).

The drama, which had produced nothing of any real value under the influence of Romanticism, passed through a period of great brilliancy after 1850. Most of the works produced since that date belong to the comedy of manners, often containing little of the comic, which derives its origin from the Romantic drama -- to which it owes its ambition to reproduce "atmosphere" -- and from the comedy of Scribe. The essential characteristic of the work of scribe is the care which he brings to the contrivance of his scenes, the disposal of his action, and the preparation of his dénouement. This dexterity in managing a plot reappears in almost all the dramatic authors of the second half of the nineteenth century, with whom it is an important element of their art. Lastly, the influence of the romance makes itself felt; as the romance strives after exact portraiture of life and manners, so does the drama. To resume, the modern comedy of manners combines Scribe's theatrical technique with Balzac's observation.

The chief initiator of the dramatic movement of his time was Alexandre Dumas, fils (1824-96). An extremely penetrating observer, he had at the same time the mental idiosyncracy of a quasi-mystical moralist. At first his gift of observation dominates; in "La Dame aux Camélias" (1852), "Question d'argent" (1857), and "Le pêre prodigue" (1859) he depicts Parisian society. Then, from 1867 on, the moralist runs away with him and he creates a new type, the "problem play" (pièce de thèse), in which, in an exuberantly spirited dialogue of dazzling wit, he studies and discusses certain fundamental social questions (Les idées de Madame Aubray", 1867). The work of the younger Dumas is often bizarre and irritating, that of Emile Augier (1820-89), who shares public favor with him, is more uniform. The dominant quality in Augier is good sense; he has devoted himself to painting bourgeois society, using methods almost identical with those of the Classics, and, like them, creating general types. At the same time when Naturalism was trying to obtain possession of the drama, as it had already taken possession of romance, Henri Becque (1837-89), who produced little besides, was the principle dramatist of that school ("Les Corbeaux", 1882). But the movement was short-lived; Naturalism in drama soon ran to excesses which ruined its reputation. Dumas fils, however, is still the master from whom the contemporary dramatists hold, and Edouard Pailleron, Henri Lavedon, Maurice Donnat, and Paul Hervieu all owe him much. It is to be noted that in the last years of the nineteenth century the French stage witnessed a revival of the heroic comedy in M. Edmond Rostand's "Cyrano de Bergerac" (1897).

We have already spoke of Renan and Taine in connection with the general tendencies of this period; these two names also belong to the literature of history. Renan (1832-92), with his "Origines du Christianisme", opened the domain of literature to religious history, which before had belonged only to pure erudition. Apart from the wavering skepticism and dilettantism in his work, his influence has been felt by a great number of writers. Taine (1828-93), inaugurated in history of the method of "little facts" borrowed from the sciences. He classifies and arranges a mass of unimportant events which serve him as document of his epoch, and from these he gathers tendencies and laws (Les Origines de la France Contemporaine). Side by side with Renan and Taine we must place Fustel de Coulanges (1830-1889), whose method is the scrupulous analysis of text, and above all the study of the laws of social change. Since these great masters, historical literature has risen to superb heights; among the most brilliant historians of our own day it will suffice to mention MM. Albert Sorel, Albert Vandal, and Henri Houssaye.

Lastly, following Sainte-Beuve, some remarkable writers have raised criticism to the independent rank of a great department of literature. Here M. Brunetière (1849-1906) introduced the idea of evolution, showing how literary forms are born, develop, flourish, and then become dissolved and resolve into other forms. No one has pleaded the cause of tradition with greater warmth, and even violence, than M. Brunetière and this same classical tradition is defended by M. Jules Lamaître, under the fluctuating forms of a clever and ingenious criticism, which has nothing of dilettantism but the appearance, and by M. Emile Faguet, in monographs remarkable for precise analysis and vigorous relief.

In conclusion, it may be asked: What stage of its development has French literature now reached? and what character is it likely to assume in the course of the twentieth century? -- It would be vain to attempt a guess, but some of the influences which seem bound to affect it may be here indicated. First, science will increasingly impose on writers of the future its discipline and methods. On the other hand the fact that the study of Greek and Latin is losing ground in France cannot fail to have the most profound consequences in literature. Lastly, we seem, in these days, to be assisting at a social transformation, the shock of which will make itself felt in arts and letters.

Belgian Literature in the French Language

In the Middle Ages the literature in French which developed in the provinces of Hainault, Flanders, Brabant, and Liège had all the characteristics of the French literature of the time, except that it furnished neither works nor names of any mark. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was the same poverty of literary output. In the eighteenth century, under the then universal influence of French literature, a grand signeur, the Prince de Ligne (1735-1814), rivals in easy grace of style the French writers of his time -- "the only foreigner", as Mme. de Staël says, "who has who ever become a model in French literature, instead of being an imitator." But the true expansion of French Belgian literature -- which, however, is never more than a reflection of French literature properly so called -- dates from the formation of an independent Belgian kingdom. Charles de Coster (d. 1879), the earliest of the Belgian writers of the nineteenth century worthy of mention, brings out the very soul of Flanders in his legendary romance "Tiel Uylenspielgel", which in other respects reproduces the qualities and defects of the Romantics. From 1880, beginning with M. Camille Lemonnier, Naturalism reigns in Belgium. Naturalism, following the example set in France is dethroned by Symbolism about 1889. It may even be properly said that Symbolism deveolped in Belgium rather than France; its principle representatives are M. Rodenbach, an exquisite poet who has depicted for us the fascination of Bruggs (Le Règne du silence, Bruges-la-Morte), M. Verhaeren ("Les Soirs", 1887), and M. Maeterlinck, who has essayed to create a Symbolistic drama.

Swiss Literature in the French Language

Swiss-French literature has produced great writers, but has not kept them; they have deserted their original country to seek naturalization in France. This was the case with J.J. Rousseau, Mme. de Staël, and Benjamin Constant who, though Swiss by origin, are thoroughly French writers. In the nineteenth century, Swiss-French literature, above all, boasts of critics like Alexandre Vinet (1797-1847), and Edmund Schérer (1815-89), both distinguished by their tendency to emphasize moral interests, both, moreover, treating chiefly of French literature. In romance, likewise, M. Victor Cherbuliez (1829-1900), who excelled in the knack of weaving into the plot of a story current questions of art, science, and philosophy, and M. Eduoard Rod are very decidedly French writers. The only true Swiss author is Topfer (1799-1816 [sic]), who has left some true masterpieces of romance at once sentimental and humorous, such as his "Histoire de M. Pencil" and his "Voyages et aventures du docteur Festus" (1849).

Nisard, Histoire de la littérature française (Brussels, 1879); Brunetière, Manuel de l'Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1897); Id, Histoire de la littérature française classique (Paris, only one volume has appeared); Doumic, Histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1900); Lawson, Histoire de la littérature française; Paris, La littérature française au Moyen-Age; La Poésie au Moyen-Age; Sainte-Beuve, Tableau de la littérature française au XVIe siècle; Causeries du Lundi; Nouveaux Lundis; Brunetière, Etudes critiques sur l'histoire de la littérature française (Paris, 1887 --); Id, Histoire et littérature (Paris, 1884-86); Id., Questions de critique (Paris, 1889); Id., Nouvelles questions de critiques (Paris, 1890); Id., Essais sur la littérature contemporaine (Paris, 1892); Id., Nouveaux essais de littérature contemporaine (Paris, 1895); Id., L'évolution de la poésie lyrique in France au XIXe siècle; Id., L'évolution des genres (Paris, 1890 --); Les époques du théâtre française; Bourget, Essais de psychologie contemporaine; Nouveaux essais de psychologie contemporaine; Lemaître: Les contemporains: Impressions de théâtre; Faguet, Etudes littératures sur le XVIe siècle; Dix-septilme siècle: Dix-huitième siècle; Dix-neuviéme siècle; Politiques et moralistes de XIXe siècle; Doumic, Etudes sur la littérature française: escrevains d'aujour' hui (Paris, 1896-1900); Id., Potraits d'éscrevains (Paris, 1892); Id., Les Junenes (Paris, --); Id., Les hommes et les idées du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1904); Id., De Scribe à Ibsen (Paris, 1893); Id., Essais sur le théâtre contemporain (Paris, 1898).
English Works -- Saintsbury, Short history of French Literature (London, 1882); van Laun, Hist. of French Lit. (3 vols, Edinburgh, 1876); Hirschfield, Geschicte der frans. Literatur (Leipzig and Vienna, 1900).

RENÈ DOUMIC

Marc' Antonio Franceschini

Italian painter; b. at Bologna, 1648; d. there c. 1729; best known for the decorative works he carried out in Parma, Bologna, and Genoa, and for the designs executed for Clement XI for certain mosaics in St. Peter's. He may be regarded as a member of the Eclectic School and a follower of the Carracci, and his chief works consist of the Ranuzzi ceiling in Bologna, two fine pictures in the Bologna Gallery (Annunciation and the Holy Family) and one in the Servite convent depicting the founders of the order. Other less important churches in the same city are adorned with his works and there are five of his paintings at Vienna. He also decorated a church at Crema in 1716, and a few years later painted a fine picture of St. Thomas of Villanova giving alms to the poor, to be seen in the Augustinian church at Rimini. He is believed to have lived to a great age. Historians have stated that he visited Madrid, but the more general opinion is that he declined an invitation to that city, saying that he did not wish to leave his native country. He painted down to the very moment of his death, and on one of his pictures at Venice he declares that he was seventy-eight when he finished it, and on another in Genoa, representing Rebecca, that he was eighty. His drawing was very precise, colouring fresh and vivid, and his shadows were not so intense as those of his predecessors.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Bl. Frances d'Amboise

Duchess of Brittany, afterwards Carmelite nun, b. 1427; d. at Nantes, 4 Nov., 1485. The daughter of Louis d'Amboise, Viscount de Thouars, she was betrothed when only four years old, to Peter, second son of John V, Duke of Brittany, the marriage being solemnized when she had reached the age of fifteen. The union was, however, not very happy owing to the morose disposition of the husband who occasionally ill-treated his wife; but her gentleness gradually changed his heart, he assisted her in her works of charity and did penance for his former dissolute life. After his succession to the dukedom in 1450 her wholesome influence made itself felt in wider circles; she also intervened, not always succeessfully, in the never-ending family feuds. The duke died, leaving no legitimate heir, in l457 after having borne testimony in his last will to the devotedness of his wife. The latter consecrated her life to God, but for several years she was unable to consummate the sacrifice by entering a convent. While being educated by her future mother-in-law she had early distinguished herself by almsdeeds and fervent devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. During her married life she devoted a large portion of her fortune to the foundation of a convent of Poor Clares at Nantes, which she would have joined had her strength allowed it; she also took part in the preliminaries of the canonization of St. Vincent Ferrer, became a benefactress of the Dominican convent at Nantes, and made the acquaintance of Blessed John Soreth, General of the Carmelites, who in 1452 had established the first community of Carmelite nuns. Some of these, coming from Liège, were received by Frances at Vannes (31 Oct., 1463) where they were entertained at the castle until the convent called "The Three Maries" was habitable. Having provided their dowries she entered the novitiate (25 March, 1468), making her profession the following year. After some time spent as infirmarian she was elected prioress for life (1473), and became by her splendid example the model of a true Carmelite nun, and, in a sense, the foundress of this branch of the order. The convent proving too small she obtained not without litigation, a larger one at Nantes. She died in a holy ecstasy, and miracles were wrought at her tomb. During the Huguenot wars and the French revolution her body had to be saved twice from profanation. Pius IX beatified her 16 July, 1863.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

St. Frances of Rome

(Bussa di Leoni.)

One of the greatest mystics of the fifteenth century; born at Rome, of a noble family, in 1384; died there, 9 March, 1440. Her youthful desire was to enter religion, but at her father's wish she married, at the age of twelve, Lorenzo de' Ponziani. Among her children we know of Battista, who carried on the family name, Evangelista, a child of great gifts (d. 1411), and Ages (d. 1413). Frances was remarkable for her charity to the poor, and her zeal for souls. She won away many Roman ladies from a life of frivolity, and united them in an association of oblates attached to the White Benedictine monastery of Santa Maria Nuova; later they became the Benedictine Oblate Congregation of Tor di Specchi (25 March, 1433) which was approved by Eugene IV (4 July, 1433). Its members led the life of religious, but without the strict cloister or formal vows, and gave themselves up to prayer and good works. With her husband's consent Frances practiced continency, and advanced in a life of contemplation. Her visions often assumed the form of drama enacted for her by heavenly personages. She had the gift of miracles and ecstasy, we well as the bodily vision of her guardian angel, had revelations concerning purgatory and hell, and foretold the ending of the Western Schism. She could read the secrets of consciences and detect plots of diabolical origin. She was remarkable for her humility and detachment, her obedience and patience, exemplified on the occasion ofher husband's banishment, the captivity of Battista, her sons' death, and the loss of all her property.

On the death of husband (1436) she retired among her oblates at Tor di Specchi, seeking admission for charity's sake, and was made superior. On the occasion of a visit to her son, she fell ill and died on the day she had foretold. Her canonization was preceded by three processes (1440, 1443, 1451) and Paul V declared her a saint on 9 May, 1608, assigning 9 March as her feast day. Long before that, however, the faithful were wont to venerate her body in the church of Santa Maria Nuova in the Roman Forum, now known as the church of Santa Francesca Romana.

FRANCESCO PAOLI

Ausonio Franchi

The pseudonym of CRISTOFORO BONAVINO, philosopher; b. 24 February, 1821, at Pegli, province of Genoa; d. 12 September, 1895, at Genoa. He entered the ecclesiastical state, and some time after his ordination to the priesthood, was appointed director of an institution for secondary education at Genoa. Soon, however, he became imbued with the doctrines of French positivism and German criticism. Doubts arose in his mind, followed by an internal struggle which he describes in his work on the philosophy of the Italian schools. At the same time, important political events were taking place in Italy, culminating in the revolution of 1848. Misled, as he later says of himself, by a political passion, and also by a kind of philosophical passion, Franchi abandoned the priest's habit and office in 1849, and assumed the name of Ausonio Franchi (i.e. free Italian), indicating thereby his break with his own past and his new aspirations. Henceforth all his talents were devoted to the cause of intellectual and political liberty. The dogmatic authority of the Church and the despotic authority of the State are the objects of his incessant attacks. Combining Kant's phenomenalism and Comte's positivism, he falls into a sort of relativism and agnosticism. For him, religious truth and reason, Catholicism and freedom, are irreconcilable, and Franchi does not hesitate in his choice.

In 1854 he founded the "Ragione", a religious, political, and social weekly which was a means of propagating these ideas. Terenzio Mamiani, then Minister of Education, appointed him professor of the history of philosophy in the University of Pavia (1860), and later (1863) in the University of Milan, where he remained until 1888. No work was published by him between 1872 and 1889. A change was again taking place in his mind, not now due to passion, but to the professor's more mature reflection. It led to the publication of Franchi's last work, in which he announces his return to the Church, criticizes his former works and arguments, and denounces the opinions and principles of his earlier writings. His works are: "Elementi di Grammatica generale applicati alle due lingue italiana e latina" (Genoa, 1848-49), under the name of Cristoforo Bonavino. Under the name of Ausonio Franchi he wrote "La Filosofia delle scuole italiane" (Capolago, 1852; "Appendice", Genoa, 1853); "La religione del secolo XIXo" (Lausanne, 1853); "Studi filosofici e religiosi: Del Sentimento" (Turin, 1854); "Il Razionalismo del Popolo" (Geneva, 1856); "Letture sulla Storia della Filosofia moderna; Bacone, Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche" (Milan, 1863); "Sulla Teorica del Giudizio" (Milan, 1870); "La Caduta del Principato ecclesiastico e la Restaurazione dell' Impero Germanico" (Milan, 1871); "Saggi di critica e polemica" (Milan, 1871-72). He also edited "Appendice alle Memorie politiche di Felice Orsini" (Turin, 1858); "Epistolario di Giuseppe La Farina" (Milan, 1869(; and Scritti politici di Giuseppe La Farina" (Milan, 1870).

C.A. DUBRAY

Francia

(FRANCESCO RAIBOLINI)

A famous Bolognese goldsmith, engraver, and artist, b. about 1450; d. in 1517. His family was one of the best in Bologna, and owned land at Zola Predosa. His father was a wood-carver, but Francesco entered the guild of goldsmiths (1482), and was elected its head in the following year. His master was one Duc, surnamed Francia, doubtless because of his native land, and Francesco adopted this surname, either through gratitude, or more probably as a valuable trade-mark. Like Pisanello, Verrocchio, Pollaiuolo, and Ghirlandajo, he is an example of what Italian art owes to close association with the minor arts. A gradation of the fine arts, the idea of greater or lesser dignity and rank, did not then exist and was to spring up only later, in the school of Michelangelo. This fact imparts to all the æsthetic manifestations of the classic period that unity and perfection of detail and life which imagination and taste impress on all things. The relations between the goldsmith's art and painting were then particularly close. In this way painting was enabled to rise above the vulgar demands of a pious imagerie of the Giottesque type, and the dry and pedantic learning of Uccello and Andrea del Castagno. Art, ornament, and beauty, which threatened to disappear, were thus restored to painting. This is why the "industrial" side of Francia's art, exemplified in his admirable medals, nielli, and enamels, his work as a jeweller, an armourer, and a type-caster, cannot be too strongly insisted on. He is known to have designed the italic type for the edition of Virgil published by Aldus Manutius (Venice, 1501). We know also that the invention of engraving is partly due to the art of niello in which Francia was a master. A few prints are ascribed to Francia; in the art of engraving he was the first master of Marcantonio Raimondi.

Circumstances, however, impelled Francia to become a painter. Very probably he received his first lessons from Francesco Cossa (d. at Bologna, 1485), but it was from Lorenzo Costa that he received his principal instruction. This artist, slightly younger than Francia, had recently won renown at Ferrara and returned in 1483 to Bologna, where he set up his studio in the house occupied by the goldsmith. More than one work (church of the Misericordia, Bentivoglio palace) resulted from their friendly collaboration. Certain peculiarities of Francia, his familiar scenic arrangements, the beautiful architecture, the carved thrones of his Madonnas, the little angelic musicians seated on steps, are touches of Ferrarese taste which proclaim the influence of Costa. In landscape Francia felt later the influence of Perugino (1446-1524), who, in 1497, was painting his "Virgo Gloriosa" at San Giovanni in Monte. These influences, however, should be acknowledged with all the reserve imposed in the case of an already mature man, who had long been an artist of repute when he began to paint. The earliest extant works of Francia, e. g. the "Calvary" of the Archiginnasio of Bologna, the "Madonna" of Berlin, above all the remarkable "St. Stephen" of the Casino Borghese, are remarkable for a certain character of "dilettantism" (Burckhardt), for something so intentionally unique and original that one does not know with what to connect them in all the history of painting. We feel ourselves in the presence of a master who grasps with firmness his own ideas and is extremely personal in his tendencies, one who takes up a new craft only because it enables him to apply highly individual theories or express his intimate tastes. The early attempts were followed by a series of great works dated as follows: the Felicini reredos (Bologna, 1494), that of the Bentivoglio (San Giacomo Maggiore, 1499), those of the Scappi and the Manzuoli, the great "Annunciation" (Pinacoteca of Bologna, 1500), and various others now in the museums of Berlin and St. Petersburg. It is always the same subject so beloved throughout the fifteenth century, the Virgin surrounded by various saints; even when styled an "Annunciation", the treatment remains the same. The composition is necessarily uniform, in deference to the law of symmetry. There is naturally no action, the painter's object being to produce with these motionless figures an effect of harmony and recollection. It is a calm and tranquil beauty that he seeks to reproduce. But within these limits no one, not even Giovanni Bellini, though his "Madonna of San Zaccaria" dates from 1505, achieved so much. The orderly disposition of his figures and his well-balanced lines, heightened often by an architectural background or by landscapes, produces an impression of profound peace. So much happiness could have but one legitimate expression, i. e. music. In other words the angels playing on the harp or the lute, whom Francia loved to introduce, interpret naturally the emotions awakened by the harmony of form. Let it be added, and in this he differs from Perugino, that with him lyricism never becomes mere formula. The inspiration of Francia seems inexhaustible; hence his ability to vary indefinitely, and always with success, the same theme. Francia was always too conscientious to reproduce in a commonplace way works which were the outcome, on his part, of a deep emotional life. In this artist the conventional never replaces true sentiment, as in Perugino during the last twenty-five years of his life.

The types of Francia, though extremely general in significance, are none the less markedly individual; his Sebastian has not the same features, the same piety, the same ecstasy as Bernard, nor is his figure of Augustine the same as that of Francis. In execution he displays admirable care in all details and is never negligent. The figures are irreproachably constructed, while the elegant ornamentation, the sculptures, embroideries, tiaras, and dalmatics betray the sharp and critical eye of the goldsmith and engraver. Of this we are reminded still more forcibly by his fondness for, and careful selection of, the best materials for his palette, and his taste for compact, thick, enamelled painting, of itself a pleasure to the eye. Each picture of Francia has its own sonorous harmony; throughout his work we seem to hear, as it were, an orchestration of colour. We have here the principles of an entirely new art, altogether different from the ultra-intellectual preoccupations of the Florentine School. Horace had said that poetry was a kind of painting, ut pictura poesis; one might imagine that in turn Francia wished to prove that painting was a kind of music. It was the idea likely to arise in an ancient musical city immemorially famous for its singers and its lute-players. Only in his later pictures, however, e. g. the "Baptism of Christ" (Dresden, 1509), the "Deposition" (Turin, 1515), the "Sacra Conversazione" of Parma, above all in that of London (about 1516), does Francia display the full measure of his genius. Several of his frescoes are known, e. g. the "Madonna del Terremuoto" (Bologna, 1505) and two charming pages from the life of St. Cecilia, her marriage and her burial, at San Giacomo Maggiore (1507). He is also the author of beautiful portraits (Pitti Palace, also the Uffizi, in Florence). No doubt his modesty, his quiet and retired life, spent entirely at Bologna, his avoidance of historical and mythological subjects, a mental temper which held him aloof from the great movement of the Renaissance and caused him to pursue so novel an occupation, suffice to explain the semi-obliteration of his fame. His contemporaries, nevertheless, considered him a man of no small importance. Raphael corresponded with him, though there is no proof that the letter and sonnet quoted by Malvasia are authentic. In 1508 he was named director of the mint of Bologna, and in 1514, master of all the artistic corporations of the city. He was handsome, says his contemporary Seccadinari, very eloquent, well-informed, and distinguished. His influence, nevertheless, was confined to Bologna. He lived apart from the pagan and rationalistic movement of the fifteenth century, was an isolated man of great and noble gifts, original and pure in his use of them, in a word the most eminent personality in Northern Italian art previous to Titian and Correggio. He had two sons, Giacomo and Giulio, b. in 1485 and 1487.

VASARI, ed. MILANESI, III, 555; MALVASIA, Felsina Pittrice (Bologna, 1641); CALVI, Memorie della vita di Fr. Raibolini detto il Francia (Bologna, 1812); DUCHESNE, Essai sur les Nielles (Paris, 1812); REID, The Engravings of Francia (London, 1871); WILLIAMSON, Francia (London, 1901).

LOUIS GILLET

Francis I

King of France; b. at Cognac, 12 September, 1494; d. at Rambouillet, 31 March, 1547. He was the son of Charles of Orléans, Count of Angoulême, and Louise of Savoy, and the husband of Claude of France, daughter of Louis XII. He succeeded to the throne 1 January, 1515, not as son-in-law, since the Salic Law did not permit succession through women, but as cousin of Louis XII, who had no male heir. His victory at Marignano (1515) over the Swiss who were defending Maximilian Sforza established the young king's reputation in Italy. He took advantage of this at "the interview of Bologna" to bring to a successful termination the efforts of his predecessors, Charles VII and Louis XI, to impose on Leo X the concordat which governed the organization of the French Church from that time till the end of the old regime (see FRANCE). This marked the beginning of a series of measures destined to establish in France the preponderance of the royal power. Francis I sought by every means, even by exceptional tribunals, to destroy among the nobles, both bishops and seigneurs (lords), the spirit of independence. The formula of royal edicts "car tel est notre bon plaisir" (because it is our good pleasure) dates from his reign. The death of Emperor Maximilian I (1519) led Francis I to dispute the imperial crown with Charles of Austria who had recently inherited the crown of Spain. The latter became emperor as Charles V. Surrounded on the south, north-east, and east by the states of Charles V, Francis I, immediately after his interview of the Field of the Cloth of Gold with Henry VIII of England (1520), began the struggle with the House of Austria which was to be prolonged, with occasional truces, until 1756. Four successive wars against Charles V filled the reign of King Francis. The first, famous for the exploits and death of Bayard, the "chevalier sans peur et sans reproche", the treason of the Constable de Bourbon, the defeat of Francis I at Pavia (1525), and his captivity, ended with the Treaty of Madrid (1526), by which he ceded Burgundy to Charles V. The second war, rendered necessary by the refusal of the deputies of Burgundy to become the subjects of the emperor, and marked by the alliance between Francis I and the Italian princes, among them Pope Clement VII (League of Cognac, 1526), brought about the sack of Rome by the imperial troops under the command of the Constable de Bourbon (1527), and ended with the Peace of Cambrai (1529), in reality no more than a truce. After its conclusion, Francis I, who had lost his wife, Claude of France, in 1524, wedded Eleanor of Austria, sister of Charles V. The third war, entered upon by Francis I after he had reorganized a permanent national army, and at the time when Charles V had undertaken an expedition against Tunis, was marked by the entrance of the French troops into Savoy and the entrance of the troops of Charles V into Provence (1536); it was brought to an end, thanks to the mediation of Pope Paul III, by the treaty of Aigues-Mortes. The fourth war, resulting from the ambitious designs of Francis I on Milan, was marked by the alliance of Charles V with Henry VIII, by the French victory of Ceresole (1544), and was ended by the Treaties of Crespy and Ardres (1544 and 1546).

The history of no other reign has been so profoundly studied in modern times as that of Francis I. A series of recent works has brought out the originality and novelty of his political maxims. The struggle against the House of Austria made Francis I the ally of the Holy See during the pontificate of Clement VII, whose niece, Catherine, had married Henry II, the future King of France (see CATHERINE DE' MEDICI), but he could not prevail upon Clement VII to grant a divorce to Henry VIII of England. Impelled by the desire to menace Charles V not only on the frontiers but even in the interior of his territory, Francis I sent his agents into Germany, who fostered political and religious anarchy and favoured the political ascendency of the Protestant princes. His policy in this respect was opposed to Catholic interests and even opposed to those of Christianity, for, after having in 1522 and 1523 sent Antonio Rincon to the King of Poland and the Voivode of Transylvania to urge them to threaten Charles V on the eastern frontier of the empire, Francis I thought of utilizing the Turks against the emperor. Before he had even thought of this alliance rumours spread throughout Germany held him responsible for the victories of the Mussulmans at Belgrade and Rhodes. Francis I entered into negotiations with the Sultan Soliman in 1526 through his agent Frangipani, and in 1528 through Antonio Rincon. The Progress of the Turks in central Europe between 1528 and 1532 injured the reputation of Francis I. He then secured the assistance of the Turks against Charles V in the Italian peninsula and in the Western Mediterranean. Then followed his negotiations with Barbarossa (1533-34), at that time master of all North Africa. In 1535 his ambassador Jean de la Forest was sent to Barbarossa to arrange for a campaign against the Genoese, and to the sultan to secure his alliance with Francis I in order to preserve the European balance of power. From these negotiations of Jean de la Forest date the abandonment by France of the medieval idea of la Chrétienté, or Christendom, and, on the other hand, her protection of the Christians in the East (see FRANCE).

Francis I played the part of a Mæcenas in the spread of the Renaissance in France. He invited from Italy the great artists Leonardo da Vinci, Rosso, Primaticcio, Benvenuto Cellini, and Andrea del Sarto. He began the present Louvre, built or decorated the châteaux of Fontainebleau and Chambord, and was patron of the poets Marot and du Bellay. His most valuable service to Humanism was the foundation of the Collège de France, intended originally for the teaching of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He was also the founder of the Imprimerie Royale. While he permitted the development in intellectual circles of certain Protestant ideas simultaneously with Humanism, he was on the other hand, after 1534, quite hostile to the propagation of Protestantism among the common people, as is shown by his persecution (1545) of the Vaudois of Chabrières and Mérindol. The poems of Francis I, though interesting as historical documents, are mediocre work. His tomb and that of his wife, Claude of France, in St. Denis, were designed by Philibert Delorme, and executed by Pierre Bontemps.

CONTEMPORARY SOURCES: Catalogue des actes de François Ier (10 vols., Paris, 1887-1907); Ordonnances du règne de François Ier, 1515-1516 (Paris, 1902); CHAMPOLLION-FIGÉAC, Captivité du Roi François Ier (Paris, 1847); Poésies de François Ier, ed. CHAMPOLLION-FIGÉAC (Paris, 1847); Journal de Louise de Savoie, ed. GUICHENON (Paris, 1778); Journal de Jean Barillon, ed. VAISSIRE (Paris, 1897-99); Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris sous le règne de François Ier, ed. LALANNE (Paris, 1854); Chronique du Roi François Ier, ed. GUIFFREY, (Paris, 1864); Mémoires de Martin du Bellay, de Fleurange, de Saulx de Tavannes, de Vieilleville; Histoire du gentil seigneur de Bayard, ed. ROMAN (Paris, 1878); MONLUC, Commentaires, ed. DE RUBLE (Paris, 1864-1872).
MODERN WORKS: PAULIN PARIS, études sur le règne de François Ier (2 vols., Paris, 1885); MADELIN, De Conventu Bononiensi (Paris, 1901); MIGNET, Rivalité de François Ier et de Charles-Quint (2 vols., Paris, 1878); HAMY, Entrevue de François Ier avec Henri VIII à Boulogne-Sur-Mer en 1532; Intervention de la France dans l'affaire du divorce (Paris, 1898); BOURRILLY, La première ambassade d'Antonio Rincon en Orient in Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (1900-1901), II; IDEM, L'ambassade de Laforest et Marillac à Constantinople in Rev. Hist. (1901), LXXVI; IDEM, La règne de François Ier in Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine (1902-1903), IV; LEMONNIER, La France sous Charles VIII, Louis XII et François Ier in LAVISSE, Histoire de France (Paris, 1903), V; URSU, La politique oriental de François Ier (Paris, 1908).

GEORGES GOYAU

Rule of Saint Francis

As known, St. Francis founded three orders and gave each of them a special rule. Here only the rule of the first order is to be considered, i.e., that of the Friars Minor, under the following headings: I. ORIGIN AND CONTENTS OF THE RULE; II. INTERPRETATION AND OBSERVANCE OF THE RULE.

I. ORIGIN AND CONTENTS OF THE RULE

(1) Origin

There is, as in so many other points in the life of St. Francis, not a small amount of doubt and controversy about the Rule of St. Francis. Whether St. Francis wrote several rules or one rule only, with several versions, whether he received it directly from heaven through revelation, or whether it was the fruit of long experience, whether he gave it the last touch or whether its definite form is due to the influence of others, all these are questions which find different answers. However in some cases, it is more a question of words than of facts. We may speak of three successive rules or of three successive versions of the same rule; that makes little difference, since the spirit in the three cases is the same. For clearness, we shall speak simply of the three rules, the first of which is of the year 1209, the second of 1221, the third of 1223; expounding more especially the one of 1223, as this is properly the Rule of St. Francis, the object of this article.

(a) The Rule of 1209

This is the rule St. Francis presented to Innocent III for approval in the year 1209; its real text is not known. If, however, we regard the statements of Thomas of Celano (I Cel., i, 9 and 13, ed. d'Alencon, Rome, 1906) and St. Bonaventure (Legenda major, c. iii), we are forced to conclude that this primitive rule was little more than some passages of the Gospel heard in 1208 in the chapel of Portiuncula. From which Gospel precisely these words were taken, we do not know. The following passages, Matt., xix, 21; Matt., xvi, 24; Luke, ix, 3, occurring in the second rule (i and xiv), are considered as a part of the original one of 1209. They enjoin apostolical life with all its renouncements and privations. The three vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty, essential to any religious order, and some practical rules of conduct were added. Thomas of Celano says in this regard (I Cel., i, 13): "Blessed Francis, seeing that the Lord God was daily increasing the number [of the brethren] for that very purpose, wrote down simply and in few words for himself and for his brethren, both present and future, a pattern and rule of life, using chiefly the language of the holy Gospel after whose perfection alone he yearned" [version of Ferrers Howell (London, 1908), p. 31]. St. Bonaventure (loc. cit.) and the so-called "Legend of the Three Companions" (viii) repeat almost the same words. The fact can otherwise be gathered from the description of the early state of the order, made by St. Francis himself in the "Testament": "And when the Lord gave me some brothers, no one showed me what I ought to do, but the Most High Himself revealed to me that I should live according to the form of the holy Gospel. And I caused it to be written in few words and simply, and the Lord Pope confirmed it for me" (version of Paschal Robinson). These last words of St. Francis refer to the oral approval of the original rule, given by Innocent III, 1209. Angelo Clareno, in his (not printed) "Exposition of the Rule," alleges that this rule was approved in the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. But this is not certain; it is not even proved that St. Francis was in Rome at that time. Still, indirectly, Angelo Clareno is right, inasmuch as the prohibition of founding new orders, decreed at this council, was not applied to St. Francis's institute. Some letters of Honorius III, given 1219 (Bullarium Franciscanum, I, 2), may also be considered as a general approbation of the life and rule of the friars. The text of the primitive rule seems to have perished very early, since Hugo of Digne (Expositio in Regulam, Prologus and c. xii) in the middle of the thirteenth century, Ubertino of Casale (Arbor Vitae, Bk. V, c. v, Venice, 1485, f.E.II, v., a) and Angelo Clareno (Expositio in Regulam, passim) in the beginning of the fourteenth century, quote constantly as the first rule, confirmed by Innocent III, the one written in 1221. However, endeavours of reconstruction have been made by Karl Mueller (Die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften, Freiburg im Br., 1885, 185-188), and by H. Böhmer (Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi, Tuebingen and Leipzig, 1904, 88-89). This first rule marks the stage of the order governed by St. Francis's personal authority, and it is quite natural that this first attempt could not be developed as later rules were. But to conclude hence that Francis did not intend to found an order properly so called, in other words, to write any religious rule at all, is quite different. All that can be said is this, that St. Francis did not take as his model any monastic order, but simply the life of Christ and His Apostles, the Gospel itself.

(b) The Rule of 1221

If we give credit to Jacques de Vitry, in a letter written at Genoa, 1216 (Böhmer, loc. cit., 98), and to the traditional "Legend of the Three Companions" (c. xiv), the rule of 1209 was successively improved at the annual general chapter at Portiuncula by new statutes, the fruit of ever-growing experience. Jacques de Vitry (loc. cit.) writes: "The men of this Religion with great fruit assemble every year at a determined place, that they may rejoice in the Lord and take their meals, and by the counsel of good men they make and promulgate holy statutes, which are confirmed by the Pope." Indeed Thomas of Celano records one such statute (II Cel., ii, 91): "He [Francis], for a general commonition in a certain Chapter, caused these words to be written: 'Let the Friars take care not to appear gloomy and sad like hypocrites, but let them be jovial and merry, showing that they rejoice in the Lord, and becomingly courteous.'" This passage is literally found in the rule of 1221, c. vii. The traditional "Legend of the Three Companions" says (c. xiv): "At Whitsuntide [every year] all the brethren assembled unto St. Mary and consulted how best they might observe the Rule. Moreover St. Francis gave unto them admonition, rebukes, and precepts, according as seemed good unto him by the counsel of the Lord." And c. ix: "For he [St. Francis] made divers Rules, and essayed them, before he made that which at the last he left unto the brethren" (translation of Salter, London, 1902, p. 88, 60). During the years 1219-1220 in the absence of the holy founder in the East, some events happened which determined Francis to recast his rule, in order to prevent similar troubles in the future. The only author who informs us well on this point is Jordanus of Giano in his Chronicle (Analecta Franciscana, I, iv sq.; ed. Böhmer, Paris, 1908, 9 sq.). The vicars left in charge of the brothers by St. Francis having made some innovations against the spirit of the rule, and St. Francis having heard of this, he immediately returned to Italy and with the help of Cardinal Ugolino repressed the disorders. Jordanus (ed. Böhmer, p. 15) then goes on: "And thus the disturbers with the help of the Lord being kept down, he [St. Francis] reformed the Order according to its statutes [alias institutions, Instituta]. And the blessed Francis seeing that brother Caesarius [of Spires] was learned in holy letters, he charged him to embellish with texts of the Gospel the Rule which he himself had written with simple words." The narrative of Jordanus, precious though it be, is incomplete. "Speculum perfectionis" (ed. Sabatier, Paris, 1898, c. lxviii), Angelo Clareno (Felice Tocco, "Le due prime Tribolazioni dell'Ordine Francescano," Rome, 1908, p. 36; Döllinger, "Sektengeschichte," II, 440 sq.; and "Expositio in Regulam"), Bartholomew of Pisa [Liber Conformitatum fruct., XII, pars II, ed. Milan, 1510, f. cxxxv, v., a, Anal. Franc., IV (1906), 585] tell us that at some general chapter the ministers and custodes, alias the learned brethren, asked Cardinal Ugolino to use his friendship with St. Francis that he might introduce some organization into the order according to the Rules of St. Augustine, St. Benedict, and St. Bernard, and that they might receive some influence. St. Francis being questioned, answered that he was called to walk by the way of simplicity, and that he would always follow the folly of the Cross. The chapter at which this occurred was most, likely the one of 1220.

The authority of the aforesaid sources may be contested, still, an allusion to those events may be seen in Il Cel., ii, 141. At any rate in a Bull of Honorius III, Viterbo, 22 Sept., 1220 (Bull. Franc., I, 6), addressed "to the Priors or Custodes of the Friars Minor," one year of novitiate is introduced, in conformity with other orders, after which no one may leave the order (c. ii of the rule of 1221). Furthermore we see in c. xviii of the second rule, that much authority is given to the ministers through the general chapter, which hitherto had been frequented by all the brothers, but now is reserved to the ministers. The second rule was probably published at the General Chapter of Portiuncula, 1221, where for the last time all the friars convened. It was certainly in use in the autumn of the same year, since the Friars in Germany held at Augsburg, Oct., 1221, a provincial chapter in accordance with c. xviii of this rule (See Jordanus, c. xxiii, Analecta Franciscana, i, 9; ed. Böhmer, p. 27). The second rule is called "Regula prima" by all older Franciscan writers, it being the first known in its text, or also "Regula non bullata," for it was never solemnly confirmed by a papal Bull. It has been preserved in many manuscripts and has been often printed, but there are some noteworthy discrepancies of text in chaps. x and xii. The following remarks may be added to characterize it. The rule of 1221 consists of twenty-three chapters, some of which are composed almost entirely of scriptural texts; in others many admonitions are found and towards the end even prayers. The introductory words "Brother Francis . . . promises obedience and reverence to our Lord Pope Innocent" (d. 1216) show clearly that the second rule is only an enlarged version of the primitive one. In chaps. iv and xviii appears an organization, which at the time the first rule was written (1209) could not have existed, since St. Francis had then only twelve companions. Chap. vii, on Working and Serving, is almost certainly of the primitive rule, for its prohibition "not to be chamberlains nor cellarers, nor overseers in the houses of those whom they serve," found scarcely, or only exceptionally, any application in 1221. The Life of Brother Giles (Analecta Francisc., iii, 74 sq., and the introduction of Robinson's "The Golden Sayings of the Blessed Brother Giles," Philadelphia, 1907) may be read as an illustration of this chapter. It may appear strange that neither Thomas of Celano nor St. Bonaventure mentions this second rule, which certainly marked an important stage in the Franciscan Order. The reason thereof may be because it was composed in connexion with troubles arisen within the order, on which they preferred to keep silent.

(c) The Rule of 1223

St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) relates that when the order had greatly increased, St. Francis had a vision which determined him to reduce the rule to a more compendious form. (See also II Cel., ii, 159.) From St. Bonaventure (loc. cit.), "Speculum perfectionis" (c. i), and other sources we know that St. Francis, with Brother Leo and Brother Bonizo of Bologna (see, however, on the latter, Carmichael, "The Two Companions" in Franciscan Monthly, ix (1904), n. 86, p. 34-37), went in 1223 to Fonte Colombo, a beautiful wood-covered hill near Rieti, where, fasting on bread and water, he caused the rule, the fruit of his prayers, to be written by the hand of Brother Leo, as the Holy Spirit dictated. Elias, to whom this rule was entrusted, after a few days declared that he had lost it, hence St. Francis had the rule rewritten. Spiritual sources give other rather dramatic circumstances, under which the new rule was communicated to the provincials, headed by Brother Elias. As the primary authorities on the life of St. Francis say nothing on the point, it may be supposed that those records serve only to justify the Spirituals in their opposition to the rest of the order. The rule composed in 1223 was solemnly confirmed by the Bull "Solet annuere" of Honorius III, 29 Nov., 1223 (Bull. Franc., I, 15), and, as St. Bonaventure (Leg. maj., c. iv) and many other early Franciscan writers observe, by the Bull of the Highest Priest Jesus Christ, through the impression of the Stigmata, 14 Sept., 1224.

The rule of 1223 is the Franciscan Rule properly so called, the rule which the Friars Minor still observe. It is named by Franciscan authors "Regula bullata" or "Regula secunda." The question has been put whether St. Francis was quite free in drawing up the definitive text of his rule. From what has been already said, it may be gathered that St. Francis successively developed his rule, adapting it to the circumstances; hence if all the particulars of the former rules are not found in the last one that is no reason to say St. Francis omitted them against his own will. Those who believe in an influence exercised on St. Francis in recasting the third rule appeal to the following points: Firstly, in a letter (Opuscula S. Francisci, Quaracchi, 1904, ep. iii, p. 108 sq.) which St. Francis wrote to a certain minister, perhaps to Elias, he proposes that at the next chapter of Whitsuntide a chapter of the rule should be written to the effect that if any brother has sinned venially and humbly owns it, they (the ministers or the priests) shall "have absolutely no power of enjoining other penance save only this: go and sin no more." Now in c. vii of the third rule only merciful treatment of sinning brothers in general is recommended. Secondly, Angelo Clareno (Trib. i, ed. Tocco, op. cit., p. 58, and "Expositio in Reg.") tells us that the dispositions of c. x in the third rule were much in favour of the friars, who recurred to their ministers for the pure observance of the rule, but Honorius III, seeing the inconvenience of such a large concession, modified those passages, before approving the rule. Thirdly, Gregory IX, in the Bull "Quo elongati" (1230), says that he knew the intention of St. Francis with regard to the rule, as he had assisted him when he wrote it and obtained its confirmation. Fourthly, in c. xiv of the second rule, is the passage of the evangelical prohibitions (Luke, ix, 3), which is not to be found in the last rule, and the reason thereof is indicated by Spiritual authorities, such as "Speculum perfectionis," c. iii, Angelo Clareno (Trib. 1): "the Ministers caused it to be removed from the Rule." It is hard to say how far these assertions are true, since we have all this information, with the exception of that given by Gregory IX, from sources that are not quite free of suspicion. Carmichael (Dublin Review, 1904, CXXXIV, n. 269, p. 372 sq.) has with skill attacked all these arguments. Still some divergence of views may have existed on a few points. Another question connected with the former one is whether the rule was revealed to St. Francis. To put the question clearly we should ask, which of the three rules was revealed? Against the theory of the Spirituals it is more reasonable to say that St. Francis followed an inner light of grace when taking the texts of the Gospel as his rule of life in the years 1208-1209. Only of that first rule does St. Francis himself speak as revealed to him. (See the words of his Testament cited above.) Of course a special guidance of Providence must be admitted in a work of such importance as the definitive Rule of St. Francis.

(2) Contents of the Rule

The rule is contained in the Bull "Solet annuere," and begins with these characteristic words: "The rule and life of the Minor Brothers is this, namely, to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without property and in chastity." St. Francis promises obedience to Pope Honorius and his successors, the other brothers are to obey Brother Francis and his successors (c. i). Having thus laid the solid foundation of unity upon the Church, St. Francis gives particulars concerning reception, profession, and vestments of the brothers. They are forbidden to wear shoes, if not compelled through necessity (c. ii). Chapter the third prescribes for the clerics "the Divine Office according to the order of the holy Roman Church, with the exception of the Psalter; wherefore (or, as soon as) they may have breviaries." The laybrothers have to say Paternosters, disposed according to the canonical hours. The brothers are to "fast from the feast of All Saints until the Nativity of the Lord," during Lent, and every Friday. The forty days' fast (obligatory in the rule of 1221), which begins Epiphany, is left free to the good will of the brothers. Beautiful exhortations follow on the behaviour of the brothers when they go through the world. They are forbidden to ride on horseback, unless compelled by manifest necessity or infirmity (c. iii). The next chapter "strictly enjoins on all the brothers that in no wise they receive coins or money, either themselves or through an interposed person." However, the ministers and custodes have to take the greatest care of their subjects through spiritual friends, according to places and times and other circumstances, saving always that, as has been said, they shall not "receive coins or money" (c. iv). To banish idleness and to provide for their support, St. Francis insists on the duty of working for "those brothers to whom the Lord has given the grace of working." But they must work in such a way that "they do not extinguish the spirit of prayer and devotion, to which all temporal things must be subservient." As a reward of their labour they may receive things needed, with the exception of coins or money (c. v). Of the highest importance is chapter vi. It contains the prescriptions of the most ideal poverty: "The brothers shall appropriate nothing to themselves, neither a house nor place nor anything. And as pilgrims and strangers in this world...let them go confidently in quest of alms." "This, my dearest brothers, is the height of the most sublime poverty, which has made you heirs and kings of the kingdom of heaven: poor in goods, but exalted in virtue...." Then follows an appeal for fraternal love and mutual confidence, "for if a mother nourishes and loves her carnal son, how much more earnestly ought one to love and nourish his spiritual brother!" (c. vi). The following chapter treats of penance to be inflicted on brothers who have sinned. In some cases they must recur to their ministers, who "should beware lest they be angry or troubled on account of the sins of others, because anger and trouble impede charity in themselves and in others" (c. vii).

Chapter viii charges all the brothers "always to have one of the brothers of this religion (order) as Minister General and servant of the whole brotherhood." At his death the provincial ministers and custodes must elect a successor in the Whitsun chapter. The general chapter, at which the provincial ministers are always bound to convene, is to be held every three years, or at a longer or shorter interval, where the general so wishes. After the Whitsun chapter, provincial chapters may be convoked by the ministers (c. viii). A special chapter on preachers follows next. The brothers are forbidden to preach in any diocese against the will of the bishop, and unless they are approved by the minister general. The brothers must preach "for the utility and edification of the people, announcing to them vices and virtues, punishment and glory..." (c. ix). "Of the admonition and correction of the Brothers" is the title of chapter x. The ministers "shall visit and admonish their brothers, and shall humbly and charitably correct them, not commanding them anything against their souls and our Rule. The brothers however who are subject must remember that, for God, they have renounced their own will." If any brother cannot observe the rule spiritually, he must recur to his minister, who is bound to receive him kindly (c. x). In chapter xi the brothers are forbidden to have suspicious intimacy with women, nor are they allowed to "enter monasteries of nuns, except those to whom special permission has been granted by the Apostolic See." Nor may they "be godfathers of men or women." The twelfth and last chapter treats of those who wish to go among the Saracens and other infidels, for which purpose they must obtain leave from their provincial ministers. The ministers are bound to ask of the pope a cardinal-protector, "so that" -- with these touching words St. Francis concludes his rule -- "being always subject and submissive at the feet of the same holy Church, grounded in the Catholic faith, we may observe poverty and humility and the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we have firmly promised" (c. xii).

As may be seen from this short survey the Franciscan rule contains many commandments, tempered by the sweet exhortations of St. Francis. It is the tender voice of a loving father that speaks to his children through the rule. This rule has been praised in the highest terms by different authorities. First of all St. Francis himself had a high idea of it: "This Rule he declared to be for his brethren the book of life, the hope of salvation, the marrow of the Gospel, the way of perfection, the key of Paradise and the covenant of an eternal alliance (II Cel., ii, 158). Nicholas III (Exiit) speaks in the same way: "This Rule is founded on the words of the Gospel, it has its force from the example of Christ's life, it is confirmed by the words and deeds of the founders of the Church, the Apostles." Angelo Clareno (Expositio) calls it "the Rule of charity and piety," "the Rule of peace, truth and piety." "The Evangelical Rule" is a much-used expression for it in old Franciscan literature. The influence which the Rule of St. Francis has exercised for now seven hundred years is immeasurable. Millions have followed it, finding in it peace of heart, and the means of their own and other men's sanctification. Nor has the rule had less important effects in a more general way. Unlike all former rules, it established poverty not only for the individual members, but for the order as a whole. On this point St. Francis influenced even the Order of St. Dominic and many subsequent institutions. As early as the thirteenth century, Salimbene (ed. Holder-Egger, Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XXXII, 256) wrote: "Whoever wants to found a new congregation, always take something from the Order of blessed Francis." For the general influence of Franciscan poverty see Dubois, "St. Francis of Assisi, social reformer" (New York, 1906). The constitution of the order is likewise different from that of the monastic orders. It is strictly hierarchical, the convents being grouped into provinces which are governed by the provincials, who in turn are under the jurisdiction of the minister general, the head and ruler of the whole order. -- The words of St. Francis (c. iii Reg.): "Let the clerics perform the Divine office according to the order of the holy Roman Church with the exception of the Psalter," have had a singular result. Through adopting the shorter breviary of the papal Curia the Franciscans made this breviary popular, reformed it in many points and led to its being practically received by the whole secular clergy. (See Baeumer, "Geschichte des Breviers," Freiburg im Br., 1895, p. 318 sqq.; Batiffol, "Histoire du Breviaire Romain," Paris, 1893, p. 142 sqq.) The principles concerning preaching as laid down by St. Francis in c. ix of his Rule contain the secret of the great Franciscan preachers who have always been among the most successful and popular. Finally, chap. xii on missions amongst the infidels is a happy innovation in religious rules, as Angelo Clareno in his exposition wisely observed. There can be no doubt that the great impulse given to foreign missions in the thirteenth century is due to St. Francis, who was himself a missionary in the East and saw some of his brethren martyred for the Faith.

II. INTERPRETATION

The ideal that St. Francis laid down in his rule is very high; the apostolical life was to be put in practice by his brethren, and indeed we see that St. Francis and his companions lived perfectly according to that standard. But the number of the friars rapidly increasing, and on the other hand, some being received into the order who had not the pure intentions and the great zeal of Francis, the rule gave rise to many controversies, and, as a consequence, to many declarations and expositions. The first exposition of the rule was given by St. Francis himself in his Testament (1226). He puts there his own and his first disciples' life as an example to the brothers. Moreover he forbids them "to ask for any letter from the Roman Curia, either for a church or for any other place, whether under pretext of preaching, or on account of their bodily persecution." He enjoins also on all brothers "not to put glosses on the Rule," but as he had written it purely and simply, so ought they "understand it simply and purely -- and with holy operation observe it until the end." Nevertheless we have a great number of expositions of the rule, and it cannot be said that they are, in their greatest part, against the will of St. Francis. He himself had in his lifetime been humble enough to submit in everything to the decisions of the Church, and so he desired his sons to do. Even the Spirituals, who cleaved to the letter of the rule, as Olivi and Clareno, were not against reasonable expounding of the rule, and have written expositions thereof themselves. Besides, the decisions of the popes are not dispensations, but authentic interpretations of a rule, that binds only inasmuch as it is approved by the Church. To proceed with order, we shall firstly speak of the authentic interpretations, secondly of the private expositions.

(1) Authentic Interpretations

These are the papal Constitutions on the rule. Doubts about the meaning and the observance of the rule having risen at the general chapter of Assisi (1230), a deputation of prominent men was sent to Gregory IX, to obtain a papal decision. On 28 September, 1230, the pope edited the Bull "Quo elongati" (Bull. Franc., I, 68), a document of capital importance for the future of the order. In this Bull the pope, claiming to know the intentions of the holy founder, since he had assisted him in the composition and approval of the rule, declares that for the tranquillity of conscience of the friars, the Testament of St. Francis has no binding power over them, as Francis, when making it, had no legislative power. Nor are the brothers bound to all the counsels of the Gospel, but only to those that are expressly mentioned in the rule, by way of precept or of prohibition. Dispositions are made with regard to money and property. The brothers may appoint a messenger (nuntius), who may receive money from benefactors and in the latter's name either spend it for the present needs of the friars, or confide it to a spiritual friend for imminent wants. The principle of absolute poverty is maintained for the individual friar and for the whole community; still the use of the necessary movable objects is granted them. These are some of the most striking dispositions of Gregory IX, whose principles of wise interpretation have remained fundamental for the order. Innocent IV, in the Bull "Ordinem vestrum," 14 Nov., 1245 (Bull. Franc. I, 400), confirmed the dispositions of his predecessor, but at the same time made more ample concessions, since he allowed the brothers to recur to the messenger or spiritual friend not only for things necessary, but also for things useful and convenient (commoda). The order, however, in two general chapters, at Metz, 1249, and at Narbonne, 1260, declined to receive this privilege, inasmuch as it goes farther than the concession of Gregory IX. In the same Bull Innocent IV declares that all things in the use of the friars belong to the Apostolic See, unless the donor has reserved the ownership to himself. A necessary consequence of this disposition was the institution of a procurator by the same pope through the Bull "Quanto studiosius," 19 Aug., 1247 (Bull. Franc., I, 487). This procurator was to act in the name of the Apostolic See as a civil party in the administration of the goods in use of the friars. The faculties of this procurator, or Apostolic syndic, were much enlarged by Martin IV through the Bull "Exultantes in Domino," 18 January, 1283 (Bull. Franc., III, 501), especially in regard to lawsuits. The order received the disposition of Martin IV at the chapter of Milan, 1285, but warned at the same time against the multiplication of legal actions (see Ehrle, Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte, VI, 55).

The two most famous Constitutions on the Franciscan rule, which have been inserted in the text of canon law, and which are still in uncontested authority with the Friars Minor, are the Bulls "Exiit qui seminat" of Nicholas III, and "Exivi de Paradiso" of Clement V. The Constitution "Exiit" (c. iii, in VI, lib. V, tit. xii), prepared with the advice of eminent men in and outside the order, given at Soriano near Viterbo, 14 Aug., 1279, treats the whole rule both theoretically and practically. Nicholas III, against the enemies of the order, states that complete expropriation, in common as well as in particular, is licit, holy, and meritorious, it being taught by Christ Himself, although He, for the sake of the weak, sometimes took money. The brothers have the moderate use of things according to their rule. The proprietorship goes to the Holy See, unless the donor retains it. The question of the money is treated with special care. The employment of the messenger and spiritual friend is confirmed and explained. The friars have no right over the money, nor can they call to account an unfaithful messenger. Lest the great number of papal decisions should produce confusion, the pope declares that all former Bulls on the subject are abolished, if they are against the present one. However, this Constitution did not put an end to the questions moved by the more zealous brothers, called Spirituals. It was through their agitation at the papal court at Avignon (1309-1312) that Clement V gave the Constitution "Exivi," 6 May, 1312 (c. i, Clem., lib. V, tit. xi). Whilst Angelo Clareno, the head of the Spirituals, rejects all papal declarations on the rule, he speaks well of the Bull "Exivi," "which is among the others like a flying eagle, approaching nearest to the intention of the Founder" (Archiv für Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte, II, 139). Clement V declares that the Friars Minor are bound to poverty (usus pauper) in those points on which the rule insists. Characteristic of this Bull is the casuistic manner in which the prescriptions of the rule are treated. It declares that St. Francis wished to oblige his brothers under mortal sin in all those cases in which he uses commanding words or equivalent expressions, some of which cases are specified. The Constitutions "Exiit" and "Exivi" have remained fundamental laws for the Franciscans, although they were in the most important point practically suppressed by John XXII, who in his Bull "Ad conditorem canonum," 8 Dec., 1322 (Bull. Franc., V, 233), renounced on behalf of the Apostolic See the proprietorship of the goods of which the order had the use, declaring (according to the Roman law) that in many things the use could not be distinguished from the property. Consequently he forbade the appointment of an Apostolic syndic. Martin V in "Amabiles fructus," 1 Nov., 1428 (Bull. Franc., VII, 712), restored the former state of things for the Observants.

(2) Private Expositions

Only the earliest ones, which had influence on the development of the order, can be mentioned here. The most important is that of the Four Masters, edited at least six times in old collections of Franciscan texts, under the names of Monumenta, Speculum, Firmamenturn (Brescia, 1502; Salamanca, 1506, 1511; Rouen, 1509; Paris, 1512; Venice, 1513). The chapter of the custodes at Montpellier, 1541, had ordered that the solution of some doubts about the rule should be asked for from each province. We know of two expositions of the rule drawn up on this occasion. Eccleston (c. xii, alias xiii, Analecta Francisc., I, 244) speaks of the short but severe exposition which the friars in England sent to the general, beseeching him by the blood of Jesus Christ to let the rule stand as it was given by St. Francis. Unfortunately, the text of this declaration has not been handed down. We have, however, that of the province of Paris, issued on the same occasion by four masters of theology, Alexander of Hales, Jean de la Rochelle, Robert of Bastia, and Richard of Cornwall. The custos Godfried figures only as an official person. This interesting exposition of the rule, and the most ancient, for it was written in the spring of 1242, is short and treats only some dubious points, in conformity with the Bull "Quo elongati" and two later decisions of Gregory IX (1240, 1241). Their method is casuistic. They propose doubts, resolve them, and sometimes leave the questions to the superiors, or invoke a decision of the pope, although they speak twice (c. ii, ix) of the possible danger for the pure observance of the rule, if too many papal privileges are obtained. The work of the Four Masters has had the same effect on subsequent private expositions as the Bull "Quo elongati" had on all following pontifical declarations. The most prolific writer on the Rule of St. Francis was St. Bonaventure, who was compelled to answer fierce adversaries, such as Guillaume de Saint-Amour and others. His treatises are found in the Quaracchi edition of his works, VIII, 1898 (see BONAVENTURE, SAINT). The standpoint of St. Bonaventure is observance of the rule as explained by the papal declarations and with wise accommodation to circumstances. He himself exercised great influence on the decretal "Exiit" of Nicholas III.

About the same time as St. Bonaventure, Hugo of Digne (d. about 1280) wrote several treatises on the rule. His exposition is found in the above-mentioned collections, for instance in the "Firmamentum" (Paris, 1512), IV, f. xxxiv, v. (Venice, 1513), III, f. xxxii, v. John of Wales (Guallensis) wrote before 1279 an exposition, edited in "Firmamenturn" (Venice, 1513), III, f. xxviii, v. In his treatise "De Perfectione evangelica," John of Peckham has a special chapter (c. x) on the Franciscan rule, often quoted as an exposition, "Firmamentum," ed. 1512, IV, f. xciv, v; 1513, III, f. lxxii, r. David of Augsburg's sober explanation, written before the Bull "Exiit," is edited in great part by Lempp in "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte," vol. XIX (Gotha, 1898-99), 15-46, 340-360. Another expositor of the Franciscan rule towards the end of the thirteenth century was Pierre Johannis Olivi, who, besides a methodical exposition (Firmamentum, 1513, III, f. cvi, r.), wrote a great number of tracts relating to Franciscan poverty. These treatises, comprised under the name "De perfectione evangelica" are not yet printed in their entirety [see Ehrle, "Archiv für Litteratur-und Kirchengeschichte," III, 497, and Oliger, "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum" (1908), I, 617]. The theories of poverty taught by Olivi exercised great fascination over the Spirituals, especially over Angelo Clareno (d. 1337), whose exposition of the rule will shortly published by the present writer. Of others who directly or indirectly exposed the rule, or particular points of it, we can only name the best known, according to the centuries in which they lived. Fourteenth century: Ubertino of Casale, Gundisalvus of Vallebona, Petrus Aureoli, Bartholomew of Pisa, Bartholo di Sassoferrato (a lawyer). Fifteenth century: St. Bernardine of Siena, St. John Capistran, Cristoforo di Varese (not published), Alessandro Ariosto (Serena Conscientia), Jean Perrin, Jean Philippi. Sixteenth century: Brendolinus, Gilbert Nicolai, Antonio de Cordova, Jerome of Politio (O.Cap.), Francis Gonzaga. Seventeenth century: Peter Marchant, Pedro of Navarre, Mattheucci, De Gubernatis. Eighteenth century: Kerkhove, Kazenberger (several times reedited in nineteenth century), Castellucio, Viatora Coccaleo (O.Cap.), Gabrielle Angelo a Vincentia. Nineteenth century: Benoffi, O.M.Con. (Spirito della Regola de' Frati Minori, Rome, 1807; Fano, 1841) Alberto a Bulsano (Knoll, O.Cap.), Winkes, Maas, Hilarius Parisiensis (O.Cap.), whose learned but extravagant work has been put on the Index of forbidden books. Finally, Bonaventure Dernoye (Medulla S. Evangelii per Christum dictata S. Francisco in sua seraphica Regula, Antwerp, 1657) and Ladislas de Poris (O.Cap.), Meditations sur la Règle des Freres Mineurs (Paris, 1898) have written voluminous works on the rule for purposes of preaching and pious meditation.

The Rule of St. Francis is observed today by the Friars Minor and the Capuchins without dispensations. Besides the rule, both have their own general constitutions. The Conventuals profess the rule "juxta Constitutiones Urbanas" (1628), in which all former papal declarations are declared not to be binding on the Conventuals, and in which their departure from the rule, especially with regard to poverty, is again sanctioned.

TEXTS: -- The original of the Bull "Solet annuere" is preserved as a relic in the sacristy of S. Francesco at Assisi. The text is also found in the registers of Honorius III, in the Vatican Archives. Facsimiles of both and also of "Exiit " and "Exivi" are published in "Seraphicae Legislationis Textus Originales" (Rome, 1901). The texts alone "Seraphicae Legislationis Textus Originales" (Quaracchi, 1897). Critical editions of the rules, with introductions on their origin: Opuscula S.P. Francisci (Quaracchi, 1904); BOEHMER, Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi (Tuebingen, Leipzig, 1904). The papal decretals on the rule: SBARALEA, Bullarium Franciscanum, I-III (Rome, 1759-1765), V-VII (Rome, 1898-1904). English translations of the second and third rule: Works of...St. Francis of Assisi (London, 1882), 25-63; critical edition: PASCHAL ROBINSON, The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi (Philadelphia, 1906), 25-74; DE LA WARR, The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi (London, 1907), 1-36.
LITERATURE: -- CARMICHAEL, The Origin of the Rule of St. Francis in Dublin Review, CXXXIV, n. 269 (April, 1904), 357-395; MUELLER, Die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften (Freiburg im Br., 1895). A good corrective of Mueller is EHRLE, Controversen ueber die Anfaenge des Minoritenordens in Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie (1887), XI, 725-746; IDEM, Die Spaltung des Franciscanerordens in die Communitaet und die Spiritualen in Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte (Berlin, 1887), III, 554 sq.; SCHNUERER, Franz von Assisi (Munich, 1905), 81-109; FISCHER, Der heilige Franziskus von Assisi waehrend der Jahre 1219-1221 (Fribourg, 1907). Very little has been written on the old expositors of the rule. See however: HILARIUS PARISIENSIS, Regula Fratrum Minorum juxta Rom. Pontificum decreta et documenta Ordinis explanata (Lyons, Paris, 1870), X-XXX. A list of all the expositors till the middle of the seventeenth century is given by SBARLEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores Ord. Min. (Rome, 1806), LXIX.

LIVARIUS OLIGER

St. Francis Borgia

(Span. Francisco de Borja y Aragon)

Francis Borgia, born 28 October, 1510, was the son of Juan Borgia, third Duke of Gandia, and of Juana of Aragon; died 30 September, 1572. The future saint was unhappy in his ancestry. His grandfather, Juan Borgia, the second son of Alexander VI, was assassinated in Rome on 14 June, 1497, by an unknown hand, which his family always believed to be that of Cæsar Borgia. Rodrigo Borgia, elected pope in 1402 under the name of Alexander VI, had eight children. The eldest, Pedro Luis, had acquired in 1485 the hereditary Duchy of Gandia in the Kingdom of Valencia, which, at his death, passed to his brother Juan, who had married Maria Enriquez de Luna. Having been left a widow by the murder of her husband, Maria Enriquez withdrew to her duchy and devoted herself piously to the education of her two children, Juan and Isabel. After the marriage of her son in 1509, she followed the example of her daughter, who had entered the convent of Poor Clares in Gandia, and it was through these two women that sanctity entered the Borgia family, and in the House of Gandia was begun the work of reparation which Francis Borgia was to crown. Great-grandson of Alexander VI, on the paternal side, he was, on his mother's side, the great-grandson of the Catholic King Ferdinand of Aragon. This monarch had procured the appointment of his natural son, Alfonso, to the Archbishopric of Saragossa at the age of nine years. By Anna de Gurrea, Alfonso had two sons, who succeeded him in his archiepiscopal see, and two daughters, one of whom, Juana, married Duke Juan of Gandia and became the mother of our saint. By this marriage Juan had three sons and four daughters. By a second, contracted in 1523, he had five sons and five daughters. The eldest of all and heir to the dukedom was Francis. Piously reared in a court which felt the influence of the two Poor Clares, the mother and sister of the reigning duke, Francis lost his own mother when he was but ten. In 1521, a sedition amongst the populace imperilled the child's life, and the position of the nobility. When the disturbance was suppressed, Francis was sent to Saragossa to continue his education at the court of his uncle, the archbishop, an ostentatious prelate who had never been consecrated nor even ordained priest. Although in this court the Spanish faith retained its fervour, it lapsed nevertheless into the inconsistencies permitted by the times, and Francis could not disguise from himself the relation in which his grandmother stood to the dead archbishop, although he was much indebted to her for his early religious training. While at Saragossa Francis cultivated his mind and attracted the attention of his relatives by his fervour. They being desirous of assuring the fortune of the heir of Gandia, sent him at the age of twelve to Tordesillas as page to the Infanta Catarina, the youngest child and companion in solitude of the unfortunate queen, Juana the Mad.

In 1525 the Infanta married King Juan III of Portugal, and Francis returned to Saragossa to complete his education. At last, in 1528, the court of Charles V was opened to him, and the most brilliant future awaited him. On the way to Valladolid, while passing, brilliantly escorted, through Alcalá de Henares, Francis encountered a poor man whom the servants of the Inquisition were leading to prison. It was Ignatius of Loyola. The young nobleman exchanged a glance of emotion with the prisoner, little dreaming that one day they should be united by the closest ties. The emperor and empress welcomed Borgia less as a subject than as a kinsman. He was seventeen, endowed with every charm, accompanied by a magnificent train of followers, and, after the emperor, his presence was the most gallant and knightly at court. In 1529, at the desire of the empress, Charles V gave him in marriage the hand of Eleanor de Castro, at the same time making him Marquess of Lombay, master of the hounds, and equerry to the empress, and appointing Eleanor Camarera Mayor. The newly-created Marquess of Lombay enjoyed a privileged station. Whenever the emperor was travelling or conducting a campaign, he confided to the young equerry the care of the empress, and on his return to Spain treated him as a confidant and friend. In 1535, Charles V led the expedition against Tunis unaccompanied by Borgia, but in the following year the favourite followed his sovereign on the unfortunate campaign in Provence. Besides the virtues which made him the model of the court and the personal attractions which made him its ornament, the Marquess of Lombay possessed a cultivated musical taste. He delighted above all in ecclesiastical compositions, and these display a remarkable contrapuntal style and bear witness to the skill of the composer, justifying indeed the assertion that, in the sixteenth century and prior to Palestrina, Borgia was one of the chief restorers of sacred music.

In 1538, at Toledo, an eighth child was born to the Marquess of Lombay, and on 1 May of the next year the Empress Isabella died. The equerry was commissioned to convey her remains to Granada, where they were interred on 17 May. The death of the empress caused the first break in the brilliant career of the Marquess and Marchioness of Lombay. It detached them from the court and taught the nobleman the vanity of life and of its grandeurs. Blessed John of Avila preached the funeral sermon, and Francis, having made known to him his desire of reforming his life, returned to Toledo resolved to become a perfect Christian. On 26 June, 1539, Charles V named Borgia Viceroy of Catalonia, and the importance of the charge tested the sterling qualities of the courtier. Precise instructions determined his course of action. He was to reform the administration of justice, put the finances in order, fortify the city of Barcelona, and repress outlawry. On his arrival at the viceregal city, on 23 August, he at once proceeded, with an energy which no opposition could daunt, to build the ramparts, rid the country of the brigands who terrorized it, reform the monasteries, and develop learning. During his vice-regency he showed himself an inflexible justiciary, and above all an exemplary Christian. But a series of grievous trials were destined to develop in him the work of sanctification begun at Granada. In 1543 he became, by the death of his father, Duke of Gandia, and was named by the emperor master of the household of Prince Philip of Spain, who was betrothed to the Princess of Portugal. This appointment seemed to indicate Francis as the chief minister of the future reign, but by God's permission the sovereigns of Portugal opposed the appointment. Francis then retired to his Duchy of Gandia, and for three years awaited the termination of the displeasure which barred him from court. He profited by this leisure to reorganize his duchy, to found a university in which he himself took the degree of Doctor of Theology, and to attain to a still higher degree of virtue. In 1546 his wife died,. The duke had invited the Jesuits to Gandia and become their protector and disciple, and even at that time their model. But he desired still more, and on 1 February, 1548, became one of them by the pronunciation of the solemn vows of religion, although authorized by the pope to remain in the world, until he should have fulfilled his obligations towards his children and his estates–his obligations as father and as ruler.

On 31 August, 1550, the Duke of Gandia left his estates to see them no more. On 23 October he arrived at Rome, threw himself at the feet of St. Ignatius, and edified by his rare humility those especially who recalled the ancient power of the Borgias. Quick to conceive great projects, he even then urged St. Ignatius to found the Roman College. On 4 February, 1551, he left Rome, without making known his intention of departure. On 4 April, he reached Azpeitia in Guipuzcoa, and chose as his abode the hermitage of Santa Magdalena near Oñate. Charles V having permitted him to relinquish his possessions, he abdicated in favour of his eldest son, was ordained priest 25 May, and at once began to deliver a series of sermons in Guipuzcoa which revived the faith of the country. Nothing was talked of throughout Spain but this change of life, and Oñate became the object of incessant pilgrimage. The neophyte was obliged to tear himself from prayer in order to preach in the cities which called him, and which his burning words, his example, and even his mere appearance, stirred profoundly. In 1553 he was invited to visit Portugal. The court received him as a messenger from God and vowed to him, thenceforth, a veneration which it has always preserved. On his return from this journey, Francis learned that, at the request of the emperor, Pope Julius III was willing to bestow on him the cardinalate. St. Ignatius prevailed upon the pope to reconsider this decision, but two years later the project was renewed and Borgia anxiously inquired whether he might in conscience oppose the desire of the pope. St. Ignatius again relieved his embarrassment by requesting him to pronounce the solemn vows of profession, by which he engaged not to accept any dignities save at the formal command of the pope. Thenceforth the saint was reassured. Pius IV and Pius V loved him too well to impose upon him a dignity which would have caused him distress. Gregory XIII, it is true, appeared resolved, in 1572, to overcome his reluctance, but on this occasion death saved him from the elevation he had so long feared.

On 10 June, 1554, St. Ignatius named Francis Borgia commissary-general of the Society in Spain. Two years later he confided to him the care of the missions of the East and West Indies, that is to say of all the missions of the Society. To do this was to entrust to a recruit the future of his order in the peninsula, but in this choice the founder displayed his rare knowledge of men, for within seven years Francis was to transform the provinces confided to him. He found them poor in subjects, containing but few houses, and those scarcely known. He left them strengthened by his influence and rich in disciples drawn from the highest grades of society. These latter, whom his example had done so much to attract, were assembled chiefly in his novitiate at Simancas, and were sufficient for numerous foundations. Everything aided Borgia–his name, his sanctity, his eager power of initiative, and his influence with the Princess Juana, who governed Castile in the absence of her brother Philip. On 22 April, 1555, Queen Juana the Mad died at Tordesillas, attended by Borgia. To the saint's presence has been ascribed the serenity enjoyed by the queen in her last moments. The veneration which he inspired was thereby increased, and furthermore his extreme austerity, the care which he lavished on the poor in the hospitals, the marvellous graces with which God surrounded his apostolate contributed to augment a renown by which he profited to further God's work. In 1565 and 1566 he founded the missions of Florida, New Spain, and Peru, thus extending even to the New World the effects of his insatiable zeal.

In December, 1556, and three other times, Charles V shut himself up at Yuste. He at once summoned thither his old favourite, whose example had done so much to inspire him with the desire to abdicate. In the following month of August, he sent him to Lisbon to deal with various questions concerning the succession of Juan III. When the emperor died, 21 September, 1558, Borgia was unable to be present at his bedside, but he was one of the testamentary executors appointed by the monarch, and it was he who, at the solemn services at Valladolid, pronounced the eulogy of the deceased sovereign. A trial was to close this period of success. In 1559 Philip II returned to reign in Spain. Prejudiced for various reasons (and his prejudice was fomented by many who were envious of Borgia, some of whose interpolated works had been recently condemned by the Inquisition), Philip seemed to have forgotten his old friendship for the Marquess of Lombay, and he manifested towards him a displeasure which increased when he learned that the saint had gone to Lisbon. Indifferent to this storm, Francis continued for two years in Portugal his preaching and his foundations, and then, at the request of Pope Pius IV, went to Rome in 1561. But storms have their providential mission. It may be questioned whether but for the disgrace of 1543 the Duke of Gandia would have become a religious, and whether, but for the trial which took him away from Spain, he would have accomplished the work which awaited him in Italy. At Rome it was not long before he won the veneration of the public. Cardinals Otho Truchsess, Archbishop of Augsburg, Stanislaus Hosius, and Alexander Farnese evinced towards him a sincere friendship. Two men above all rejoiced at his coming. They were Michael Chisleri, the future Pope Pius V, and Charles Borromeo, whom Borgia'a example aided to become a saint.

On 16 February, 1564, Francis Borgia was named assistant general in Spain and Portugal, and on 20 January, 1565, was elected vicar-general of the Society of Jesus. He was elected general 2 July, 1565, by thirty-one votes out of thirty-nine, to succeed Father James Laynez. Although much weakened by his austerities, worn by attacks of gout and an affection of the stomach, the new general still possessed much strength, which, added to his abundant store of initiative, his daring in the conception and execution of vast designs, and the influence which he exercised over the Christian princes and at Rome, made him for the Society at once the exemplary model and the providential head. In Spain he had had other cares in addition to those of government. Henceforth he was to be only the general. The preacher was silent. The director of souls ceased to exercise his activity, except through his correspondence, which, it is true, was immense and which carried throughout the entire world light and strength to kings, bishops and apostles, to nearly all who in his day served the Catholic cause. His chief anxiety being to strengthen and develop his order, he sent visitors to all the provinces of Europe, to Brazil, India, and Japan. The instructions, with which he furnished them were models of prudence, kindness, and breadth of mind. For the missionaries as well as for the fathers delegated by the pope to the Diet of Augsburg, for the confessors of princes and the professors of colleges he mapped out wide and secure paths. While too much a man of duty to permit relaxation or abuse, he attracted chiefly by his kindness, and won souls to good by his example. The edition of the rules, at which he laboured incessantly, was completed in 1567. He published them at Rome, dispatched them (throughout the Society), and strongly urged their observance. The text of those now in force was edited after his death, in 1580, but it differs little from that issued by Borgia, to whom the Society owes the chief edition of its rules as well as that of the Spiritual Exercises, of which he had borne the expense in 1548. In order to ensure the spiritual and intellectual formation of the young religious and the apostolic character of the whole order, it became necessary to take other measures. The task of Borgia was to establish, first at Rome, then in all the provinces, wisely regulated novitiates and flourishing houses of study, and to develop the cultivation of the interior life by establishing in all of these the custom of a daily hour of prayer.

He completed at Rome the house and church of S. Andrea in Quirinale, in 1567. Illustrious novices flocked thither, among them Stanislaus Kostka (d. 1568), and the future martyr Rudolph Acquaviva. Since his first journey to Rome, Borgia had been preoccupied with the idea of founding a Roman college, and while in Spain had generously supported the project. In 1567, he built the church of the college, assured it even then an income of six thousand ducats, and at the same time drew up the rule of studies, which, in 1583, inspired the compilers of the Ratio Studiorum of the Society. Being a man of prayer as well as of action, the saintly general, despite overwhelming occupations, did not permit his soul to be distracted from continual contemplation. Strengthened by so vigilant and holy an administration the Society could not but develop. Spain and Portugal numbered many foundations; in Italy Borgia created the Roman province, and founded several colleges in Piedmont. France and the Northern province, however, were the chief field of his triumphs. His relations with the Cardinal de Lorraine and his influence with the French Court made it possible for him to put an end to numerous misunderstandings, to secure the revocation of several hostile edicts, and to found eight colleges in France. In Flanders and Bohemia, in the Tyrol and in Germany, he maintained and multiplied important foundations. The province of Poland was entirely his work. At Rome everything was transformed under his hands. He had built S. Andrea and the church of the Roman college. He assisted agenerously in the building of the Gesù, and although the official founder of that church was Cardinal Farnese, and the Roman College has taken the name of one of its greatest benefactors, Gregory XIII, Borgia contributed more than anyone towards these foundations. During the seven years of his government, Borgia had introduced so many reforms into his order as to deserve to be called its second founder. Three saints of this epoch laboured incessantly to further the renaissance of Catholicism. They were St. Francis Borgia, St. Pius V, and St. Charles Borromeo.

The pontificate of Pius V and the generalship of Borgia began within an interval of a few months and ended at almost the same time. The saintly pope had entire confidence in the saintly general, who conformed with intelligent devotion to every desire of the pontiff. It was he who inspired the pope with the idea of demanding from the Universities of Perugia and Bologna, and eventually from all the Catholic universities, a profession of the Catholic faith. It was also he who, in 1568, desired the pope to appoint a commission of cardinals charged with promoting the conversion of infidels and heretics, which was the germ of the Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith, established later by Gregory XV in 1622. A pestilential fever invaded Rome in 1566, and Borgia organized methods of relief, established ambulances, and distributed forty of his religious to such purpose that the same fever having broken out two years later it was to Borgia that the pope at once confided the task of safeguarding the city.

Francis Borgia had always greatly loved the foreign missions. He reformed those of India and the Far East and created those of America. Within a few years, he had the glory of numbering among his sons sixty-six martyrs, the most illustrious of whom were the fifty-three missionaries of Brazil who with their superior, Ignacio Azevedo, were massacred by Huguenot corsairs. It remained for Francis to terminate his beautiful life with a splendid act of obedience to the pope and devotion to the Church.

On 7 June, 1571, Pius V requested him to accompany his nephew, Cardinal Bonelli, on an embassy to Spain and Portugal. Francis was then recovering from a severe illness; it was feared that he had not the strength to bear fatigue, and he himself felt that such a journey would cost him his life, but he gave it generously. Spain welcomed him with transports. The old distrust of Philip II was forgotten. Barcelona and Valencia hastened to meet their former viceroy and saintly duke. The crowds in the streets cried: "Where is the saint?" They found him emaciated by penance. Wherever he went, he reconciled differences and soothed discord. At Madrid, Philip II received him with open arms, the Inquisition approved and recommended his genuine works. The reparation was complete, and it seemed as though God wished by this journey to give Spain to understand for the last time this living sermon, the sight of a saint. Gandia ardently desired to behold its holy duke, but he would never consent to return thither. The embassy to Lisbon was no less consoling to Borgia. Among other happy results he prevailed upon the king, Don Sebastian, to ask in marriage the hand of Marguerite of Valois, the sister of Charles IX. This was the desire of St. Pius V, but this project, being formulated too late, was frustrated by the Queen of Navarre, who had meanwhile secured the hand of Marguerite for her son. An order from the pope expressed his wish that the embassy should also reach the French court. The winter promised to be severe and was destined to prove fatal to Borgia. Still more grievous to him was to be the spectacle of the devastation which heresy had caused in that country, and which struck sorrow to the heart of the saint. At Blois, Charles IX and Catherine de' Medici accorded Borgia the reception due to a Spanish grandee, but to the cardinal legate as well as to him they gave only fair words in which there was little sincerity. On 25 February they left Blois. By the time they reached Lyons, Borgia's lungs were already affected. Under these conditions the passage of Mt. Cenis over snow-covered roads was extremely painful. By exerting all his strength the invalid reached Turin. On the way the people came out of the villages crying: "We wish to see the saint". Advised of his cousin's condition, Alfonso of Este, Duke of Ferrara, sent to Alexandria and had him brought to his ducal city, where he remained from 19 April until 3 September. His recovery was despaired of and it was said that he would not survive the autumn. Wishing to die either at Loretto or at Rome, he departed in a litter on 3 September, spent eight days at Loretto, and then, despite the sufferings caused by the slightest jolt, ordered the bearers to push forward with the utmost speed for Rome. It was expected that any instant might see the end of his agony. They reached the "Porta del Popolo" on 28 September. The dying man halted his litter and thanked God that he had been able to accomplish this act of obedience. He was borne to his cell which was soon invaded by cardinals and prelates. For two days Francis Borgia, fully conscious, awaited death, receiving those who visited him and blessing through his younger brother, Thomas Borgia, all his children and grandchildren. Shortly after midnight on 30 September, his beautiful life came to a peaceful and painless close. In the Catholic Church he had been one of the most striking examples of the conversion of souls after the Renaissance, and for the Society of Jesus he had been the protector chosen by Providence to whom, after St. Ignatius, it owes most.

In 1607 the Duke of Lerma, minister of Philip III and grandson of the holy religious, having seen his granddaughter miraculously cured through the intercession of Francis, caused the process for his canonization to be begun. The ordinary process, begun at once in several cities, was followed, in 1637, by the Apostolic process. In 1617 Madrid received the remains of the saint. In 1624 the Congregation of Rites announced that his beatification and canonization might be proceeded with. The beatification was celebrated at Madrid with incomparable splendour. Urban VIII having decreed, in 1631, that a Blessed might not be canonized without a new procedure, a new process was begun. It was reserved for Clement X to sign the Bull of canonization of St. Francis Borgia, on 20 June, 1670. Spared from the decree of Joseph Bonaparte who, in 1809, ordered the confiscation of all shrines and precious objects, the silver shrine containing the remains of the saint, after various vicissitudes, was removed, in 1901, to the church of the Society at Madrid, where it is honoured at the present time.

It is with good reason that Spain and the Church venerate in St. Francis Borgia a great man and a great saint. The highest nobles of Spain are proud of their descent from, or their connexion with him. By his penitent and apostolic life he repaired the sins of his family and rendered glorious a name, which but for him, would have remained a source of humiliation for the Church. His feast is celebrated 10 October.

Sources: Archives of Osuna (Madrid), of Simancas; National Archives of Paris; Archives of the Society of Jesus; Regeste du généralat de Laynez et de Borgia, etc. Literature: Monumenta historica S. J. (Madrid); Mon. Borgiana; Chronicon Polanci; Epistolæ Mixtæ; Quadrimetres; Epistolæ Patris Nadal, etc.; Epistolæ et instructiones S. Ignatii; Orlandini and Sacchini, Historia Societatis Jesu; AlcÁzar, Chrono-historia de la provincia de Toledo; Lives of the saint by Vasquez (1586; manuscript, still unedited), Ribadeneyra, (1592), Nieremberg (1643), Bartoli (1681), Cienfuegos (1701); Acta SS., Oct., V; Astrain, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Asistencia de España, I and II (1902, 1905); BÉthencourt, Historia genealógica y heráldica de la monarchía española (Madrid, 1902), IV, Gandia, Casa de Borja; Boletín de la Academia de la Historia (Madrid), passim; Suau, S. François de Borgia in Les Saints (Paris, 1905); Idem, Histoire de S. François de Borgia (Paris, 1909).

Pierre Suau

Franciscan Order

A term commonly used to designate the members of the various foundations of religious, whether men or women, professing to observe the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi in some one of its several forms. The aim of the present article is to indicate briefly the origin and relationship of these different foundations.

ORIGIN OF THE THREE ORDERS

It is customary to say that St. Francis founded three orders, as we read in the Office for 4 October:

Tres ordines hic ordinat: primumque Fratrum nominat Minorum: pauperumque fit Dominarum medius: sed Poenitentium tertius sexum capit utrumque. (Brev. Rom. Serap., in Solem. S.P. Fran., ant. 3, ad Laudes)

These three orders -- the Friars Minor, the Poor Ladies or Clares, and the Brothers and Sisters of Penance -- are generally referred to as the First, Second, and Third Orders of St. Francis.

First Order. The existence of the Friars Minor or first order properly dates from 1209, in which year St. Francis obtained from Innocent III an unwritten approbation of the simple rule he had composed for the guidance of his first companions. This rule has not come down to us in its original form; it was subsequently rewritten by the saint and solemnly confirmed by Honorius III, 29 Nov., 1223 (Litt. "Solet Annuere"). This second rule, as it is usually called, of the Friars Minor is the one at present professed throughout the whole First Order of St. Francis (see Rule of Saint Francis).

Second Order. The foundation of the Poor Ladies or second order may be said to have been laid in 1212. In that year St. Clare who had besought St. Francis to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had instituted, was established by him at St. Damian's near Assisi, together with several other pious maidens who had joined her. It is erroneous to suppose that St. Francis ever drew up a formal rule for these Poor ladies and no mention of such a document is found in any of the early authorities. The rule imposed upon the Poor Ladies at St. Damian's about 1219 by Cardinal Ugolino, afterwards Gregory IX, was recast by St. Clare towards the end of her life, with the assistance of Cardinal Rinaldo, afterwards Alexander IV, and in this revised form was approved by Innocent IV, 9 Aug., 1253 (Litt. "Solet Annuere"). (See Poor Clares).

Third Order. Tradition assigns the year 1221 as the date of the foundation of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, now known as tertiaries. This third order was devised by St. Francis as a sort of middle state between the cloister and the world for those who, wishing to follow in the saint's footsteps, were debarred by marriage or other ties from entering either the first or second order. There has been some difference of opinion as to how far the saint composed a rule for these tertiaries. It is generally admitted, however, that the rule approved by Nicholas IV, 18 Aug., 1289 (Litt. "Supra Montem") does not represent the original rule of the third order.

Some recent writers have tried to show that the third order, as we now call it, was really the starting point of the whole Franciscan Order. They assert that the Second and Third Orders of St. Francis were not added to the First, but that the three branches, the Friars Minor, Poor ladies, and Brother and Sisters of Penance, grew out of the lay confraternity of penance which was St. Francis's first and original intention, and were separated from it into different groups by Cardinal Ugolino, the protector of the order, during St. Francis's absence in the East (1219-21). This interesting, if somewhat arbitrary, theory is not without importance for the early history of all three orders, but it is not yet sufficiently proven to preclude the more usual account given above, according to which the Franciscan Order developed into three distinct branches, namely, the first, second, and third orders, by process of addition and not by process of division, and this is still the view generally received.

PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE THREE ORDERS

First Order. Coming next to the present organization of the Franciscan Order, the Friars Minor, or first order, now comprises three separate bodies, namely: the Friars Minor properly so called, or parent stem, founded, as has been said in 1209; the Friars Minor Conventuals, and the Friars Minor Capuchins, both of which grew out of the parent stem, and were constituted independent orders in 1517 and 1619 respectively.

All three orders profess the rule of the Friars Minor approved by Honorius III in 1223, but each one has its particular constitutions and its own minister general. The various lesser foundations of Franciscan friars following the rule of the first order, which once enjoyed a separate or quasi-separate existence, are now either extinct, like the Clareni, Coletani, and Celestines, or have become amalgamated with the Friars Minor, as in the case of the Observants, Reformati, Recollects, Alcantarines, etc. (On all these lesser foundations, now extinct, see Friars Minor)

Second Order. As regards the Second Order, of Poor ladies, now commonly called Poor Clares, this order includes all the different monasteries of cloistered nuns professing the Rule of St. Clare approved by Innocent IV in 1253, whether they observe the same in all its original strictness or according to the dispensations granted by Urvan IV, 18 Oct., 1263 (Litt. "Beata Clara") or the constitutions drawn up by St. Colette (d. 1447) and approved by Pius II, 18 March, 1458 (Litt. "Etsi"). The Sisters of the Annunciation and the Conceptionists are in some sense offshoots of the second order, but they now follow different rules from that of the Poor Ladies.

Third Order. In connection with the Brothers and Sisters of Penance or Third order of St. Francis, it is necessary to distinguish between the third order secular and the third order regular.

Secular. The third order secular was founded, as we have seen, by St. Francis about 1221 and embraces devout persons of both sexes living in the world and following a rule of life approved by Nicholas IV in 1289, and modified by Leo XIII, 30 May, 1883 (Constit. "Misericors"). It includes not only members who form part of logical fraternities, but also isolated tertiaries, hermits, pilgrims, etc.

Regular. The early history of the third order regular is uncertain and is susceptible of controversy. Some attribute its foundation to St. Elizabeth of Hungary in 1228, others to Blessed Angelina of Marsciano in 1395. The latter is said to have established at Foligno the first Franciscan monastery of enclosed tertiary nuns in Italy. It is certain that early in the fifteenth century tertiary communities of men and women existed in different parts of Europe and that the Italian friars of the third order regular were recognized as a mendicant order by the Holy See. Since about 1458 the latter body has been governed by own minister general and its members take solemn vows.

New Foundations. In addition to this third order regular, properly so called, and quite independently of it, a very large number of Franciscan tertiary congregations -- both of men and women -- have been founded, more especially since the beginning of the ninteenth century. These new foundations have taken as a basis of their institutes a special rule for members of the third order living in community approved by Leo X. 20 Jan., 1521 (Bull "Inter"). Although this rule is a greatly modified by their particular constitution which, for the rest, differ widely according to the end of each foundation. These various congregations of regular tertiaries are either autonomous or under episcopal jurisdiction, and for the most part they are Franciscan in name only, not a few of them having abandoned the habit and even the traditional cord of the order.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. For the vexed question of the origin and evolution of the third orders, see MÜLLER, Die Anfange des Minoritenordens und der Bussbruderschaften (Freiburg, 1885), 33 sqq; EHRLE in Zeitschr, j.k. Theol., XI, 743 sqq; MANDONNET, Les regles et le gouvernement de l Ordo de Paeniltentia au XIII siccle in Opuscules de critique historique, vol. l. fasc. IV (Paris, 1902); LEMMENS in Rom. Quartalschrift, XVI, 93 sqq; VAN ORTROY in Analecta Bollandiana, XVIII, 294 sqq. XXIV, 415 sqq; D'ALENCON in Etudes Franciscaines, II, 646 sq; GOETZ in Zeitschrift for Kirchengeschichte, XXIII, 97-107. The rules of the three orders are printed in Seraphicae Legislationis Textus originates (Quaracchi, 1897). A general conspectus of the Franciscan Order and its various branches is given in HOLZ-APPEL, Manuale, Historia, O.F.M. (Freiburg, 1909); HEIM-BUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1907); II, 307-533; also PATREM, Tableau synoptique de tout l Ordre Seraphique (Paris, 1879): and CUSACK, St. Francis and the Franciscans (New York, 1867).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

St. Francis Caracciolo

Co-founder with John Augustine Adorno of the Conregation of the Minor Clerks Regular; b. in Villa Santa Maria in the Abrusso (Italy), 13 October, 1563; d. at Agnone, 4 June, 1608. He belonged to the Pisquizio branch of the Caracciolo and received in baptism the name of Ascanio. From his infancy he was remarkable for his gentleness and uprightness. Having been cured of leprosy at the age of twenty-two he vowed himself to an ecclesiastical life, and distributing his goods to the poor, went to Naples in 1585 to study theology. In 1587 he was ordained priest and joined the contraternity of the Bianchi della Giustizia (The white robes of Justice), whose object was to assist condemned criminals to die holy deaths. A letter frorn Giovanni Agostino Adorno to another Ascanio Caracciolo, begging him to take part in founding a new religious institute, having been delivered by mistake to our saint, he saw in this circumstance an confidence of the Divine Will towards him (1588). He assisted in drawing up rules for the new congregation, which was approved by Sixtus V, 1 July, 1588, and confirmed by Gregory XIV, 18 February 1591, and by Clement VIII, 1 June, 1592.

The congregation is both contemplative and active, and to the three usual vows a fourth is added, namely, that its members must not aspire to ecclesiastical dignities outside the order nor seek them within it. Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is kept up by rotation, and mortification is continually practised. The motto of the order "Ad majorem Dei Resurgentis gloriam" was chosen from the fact that Francis and Adorno made their profession at Naples on Low Sunday, 9 April, 1589. In spite of his refusal he was chosen general, 9 March, 1593, in the first house of the congregation in Naples, called St. Mary Major's or Pietrasanta, given to them by Sixtus V. He made three journeys into Spain to establish foundations under the protection of Philip II and Philip III. He opened the house of the Holy Ghost at Madrid on 20 January, 1599, that of Our Lady of the Annunciation at Valladolid on 9 September, 1601, and that of St. Joseph at Alcala sometime in 1601, for teaching science. In Rome he obtained possession of St. Leonard's church, which he afterwards exchanged for that of St. Agnes in the Piazza Navona (18 September, 1598), and later he secured for the institute the church of San Lorenso in Lucina (11 June, 1606) which was made over to him by a bull of Pope Paul X, and which was, however, annulled by the Bull "Susceptum" of Pope Pius X (9 November, 1906).

St. Francis Caracciolo was the author of a valuable work, "Le sette stazioni sopra la Passione di N.S. Gesù Christo", which was printed in Rome in 1710. He loved the poor. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, a relative on his mother's side, his purity was angelic. Pope Paul V desired to confer an important bishopric on him, but he steadfastly refused it. His frequent motto was "Zelus domus tuae comedit me". Invited by the Oratorians at Agnone in the Abruzzo to convert their house into a college for his congregation, he fell ill during the negotiations and died there on the vigil of Corpus Christi. He was beatified by Pope Clement XIV on 4 June, 1769, and canonized by Pope Pius VII on 24 May, 1807. In 1838 he was chosen as patron of the city of Naples, where his body lies. At first he was buried in St. Mary Major's, but his remains were afterwards translated to the church of Monteverginella, which was given in exchange to the Minor Clerks Regular (1823) after their suppression at the time of the French Revolution. St. Francis is no longer venerated there with old fervour and devotion.

FRANCESCO PAOLI

St. Francis de Geronimo

(Girolamo, Hieronymo).

Born 17 December, 1642; died 11 May, 1716. His birthplace was Grottaglie, a small town in Apulia, situated about five or six leagues from Taranto. At the age of sixteen he entered the college of Taranto, which was under the care of the Society of Jesus. He studied humanities and philosophy there, and was so successful that his bishop sent him to Naples to attend lectures in theology and canon law at the celebrated college of Gesu Vecchio, which at that time rivalled the greatest universities in Europe. He was ordained there, 18 March, 1666. After spending four years in charge of the pupils of the college of nobles in Naples, where the students surnamed him the holy prefect, il santo prefetto, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, 1 July, 1670. At the end of his first year's probation he was sent with an experienced missioner to get his first lessons in the art of preaching in the neighborhood of Otranto. A new term of four years spent labouring in towns and villages at missionary work revealed so clearly to his superiors his wonderful gift of preaching that, after allowing him to complete his theological studies, they determined to devote him to that work, and sent him to reside at Gesù Nuovo, the residence of the professed fathers at Naples. Francis would fain have gone and laboured, perhaps even laid down his life, as he often said, amidst the barbarous and idolatrous nations of the Far East. He wrote frequently to his superiors, begging them to grant him that great favour. Finally they told him to abandon the idea altogether, and to concentrate his zeal and energy on the city and Kingdom of Naples. Francis understood this to be the will of God, and insisted no more. Naples thus became for forty years, from 1676 until his death, the centre of his apostolic labours.

He first devoted himself to stirring up the religious enthusiasm of a congregation of workmen, called the "Oratio della Missione", established at the professed house in Naples. The main object of this association was to provide the missionary father with devoted helpers amidst the thousand difficulties that would suddenly arise in the course of his work. Encouraged by the enthusiastic sermons of the director, these people became zealous co-operators. One remarkable feature of their work was the multitude of sinners they brought forth to the feet of Francis. In the notes which he sent his superiors concerning his favorite missionary work, the saint takes great pleasure in speaking of the fervour that animated the members of his dear "Oratory". Nor did their devoted director overlook the material needs of those who assisted him in the good work. In the Oratory he succeeded in establishing a mont de piété. The capital was increased by the gifts of the associate. Thanks to this institute they could have each day, in case of illness, a sum of four carlines (about one-third of a dollar); should death visit any of the members, a respectable funeral was afforded them costing the institute eighteen ducats; and they had the further privilege, which was much sought after, of being interred in the church of the Gesù Nuovo (see Brevi notizie, pp. 131-6). He established also in the Gesù one of the most important and beneficial works of the professed house of Naples, the general Communion on the third Sunday of each month (Brevi notizie, 126). He was an indefagitable preacher, and often spoke forty times in one day, choosing those streets which he new to be the centre of some secret scandal. His short, energetic, and eloquent sermons touch the guilty consciences of his hearers, and worked miraculous conversion. The rest of the week, not given over to labour in the city, was spent visiting the environs of Naples; on some occasions passing through no less than fifty hamlets a day, he preached in the streets, the public squares, and the churches. The following Sunday he would have the consolation of seeing at the Sacred Table crowds of 11,000, 12,000, and even 13,000 persons; according to his biographer there were ordinarily 15,000 men present at the monthly general Communion.

But his work par excellence was giving missions in the open air and in the low quarters of the city of Naples. His tall figure, ample brow, large dark eyes, and aquiline nose, sunken cheeks, pallid countenance, and looks that spoke of his ascetic austerities produced a wonderful impression. The people crushed forward to meet him, to see him, to kiss his hand, and to touch his garments. When he exhorted sinners to repetence, he seemed to acquire a power that was more than natural, and his feeble voice became resonant and awe-inspiring. "He is a lamb, when he talks", the people said, "but a lion when he preaches". Like the ideal popular preacher he was, when in the presence of an audience as fickle and impressionable as the Neapolitans, Francis left nothing undone that could strike their imaginations. At one time he would bring a skull to the pulpit, and showing it to his hearers would drive home the lesson he wished to impart; at another, stopping suddenly in the middle of his discourse, he would uncover his shoulders and scourge himself with an iron chain until he bled. The effect was irresistible: young men of evil lives would rush forward and follow the example of the preacher, confessing their sins aloud; and abandoned women would cast themselves before the crucifix, and cut off their long hair, giving expression to their bitter sorrow and repentance. This apostolic labour in union with the cruel penance and the ardent spirit of prayer of the saint worked wonderful results amid the slaves of sin and crime. Thus the two refuges in Naples contained in a short time 250 penitents each; and in the Asylum of the Holy Ghost he sheltered for a while 190 children of these unfortunates, preserving them thereby from the danger of afterwards following the shameful tradition of their mothers. He had the consolation of seeing twenty-two of them embrace the religious life. So also he changed the royal convict ships, which were sinks of iniquity, into refuges of Christian peace and resignation; and he tells us further that he brought many Turkish and Moorish slaves to the true faith, and made use of the pompous ceremonials at their baptisms to strike the heart and imaginations of the spectators (Breve notizie, 121-6).

Whatever time was unoccupied by his town missions he devoted to giving country or village missions of four, eight, or ten days, but never more; here and there he gave a retreat to a religious community, but in order to save his time he would not hear their confessions [cf. Recueil de lettres per le Nozze Malvezzi Hercolani (1876), p. 28]. To consolidate the great he work tried to establish everywhere an association of St. Francis Xavier, his patron and model; or else a congregation of the Blessed Virgin. For twenty-two years he preached her praises every Tuesday in the Neapolitan Church, known by the name of St. Mary of Constantinople. Although he engaged in such active exterior work, St. Francis had a mystical soul. He was often seen walking through the streets of Naples with a look of ecstasy on his face and tears streaming from his eyes; his companion had constantly to call his attention to the people who saluted him, so that Francis finally decided to walk bear-headed in public. He had the reputation at Naples of being a great miracle-worker, and his biographers, as those who testified during the process of his canonization, did not hesitate to contribute to him a host of wonders and cures of all kinds. His obsequies were, for the Neopolitans, the occasion of a triumphant procession; and had it not been for the intervention of the Swiss Guard, the zeal of his followers might have exposed the remains to the risk of desecration. In all the streets and squares of Naples, in every part of the suburbs, in the smallest neighboring hamlets, everyone spoke of the holiness, zeal, eloquence, and inexhaustible charity of the deceased missionary. The ecclesiastical authorities soon recognized that the cause of his beatification should be begun. On 2 May, 1758, Benedict XIV declared that Francis de Geranimo had practiced the theological and cardinal virtues in a heroic degree. He would have been beatified soon afterwards only for the storm that assailed the Society of Jesus about this time and ended in its suppression. Pius VII could not proceed with the beautification until 2 May, 1806; and Gregory XVI canonized the saint solemnly on 26 May, 1839.

St. Francis de Geronimo wrote little. Some of his letters have been collected by his biographers and inserted in their works; for his writings, cf. Sommervogel, "Bibl. de la Comp de Jésus", new ed., III, column 1358. We must mention by itself the account he wrote to his superiors of the fifteen most laborious years of his ministry, which has furnished the materials for the most striking details of this sketch. The work dates from October 1693. The saint modestly calls it "Brevi notizie della cose di gloria di Dio accadute negli exercizi delle sacri missioni di Napoli da quindici anni in quâ, quanto si potuto richiamare in memoria". Boero published it in S. Francesco di Girolamo, e le sue missioni dentro e fuori di Napoli", p. 67-181 (Florence, 1882). The archives of the Society of Jesus contain a voluminous collection of his sermons, or rather developed plans of his sermons. It is well to recall this proof of the care he took in preparing himself for the ministry of the pulpit, for his biographers are wont to dwell on the fact that his eloquent discourses were extemporaneous.

Among his chief biographers the following are worthy of particular mention: Stradiotti, who lived twenty-five years with the saint on the professed house at Naples and had been his superior; he wrote his life in 1719, just three years after the death of St. Francis. Six years later, a new life appeared, written by a very remarkable Jesuit, Bagnati. He lived with St. Francis for he last fifteen years of his life and was his ordinary confessor. The most popular biography is that written by de Bonis, who composed his work at the time the process of the beautification of the saint was being drawn up. Worthy of note also is the Summarium de virtutibus ven. Francisci de Hieronymo (1751). It is a work to be used with caution; the postulator of the saint's cause, Muzzarelli, extracted from it a great number of important facts relating to the labours and miracles of the saint, "Raccolta di avveminenti singolari e documenti autentici spettanti alla vita del B. Francesco di Geronimo" (Rome, 1806). Lastly, the Historie de S. François de Geronimo, ed. Bach (Metz, 1851) is the most complete work on the subject, but strives too much after the edification of the reader. C. Carayon, Bibliographie historique de la Compagne de Jesus, nn. 1861-89 (Paris, 1864).

FRANCIS VAN ORTROY

St. Francis de Sales

Bishop of Geneva, Doctor of the Universal Church; born at Thorens, in the Duchy of Savoy, 21 August, 1567; died at Lyons, 28 December, 1622. His father, François de Sales de Boisy, and his mother, Françoise de Sionnaz, belonged to old Savoyard aristocratic families. The future saint was the eldest of six brothers. His father intended him for the magistracy and sent him at an early age to the colleges of La Roche and Annecy. From 1583 till 1588 he studied rhetoric and humanities at the college of Clermont, Paris, under the care of the Jesuits. While there he began a course of theology. After a terrible and prolonged temptation to despair, caused by the discussions of the theologians of the day on the question of predestination, from which he was suddenly freed as he knelt before a miraculous image of Our Lady at St. Etienne-des-Grès, he made a vow of chastity and consecrated himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1588 he studied law at Padua, where the Jesuit Father Possevin was his spiritual director. He received his diploma of doctorate from the famous Pancirola in 1592. Having been admitted as a lawyer before the senate of Chambéry, he was about to be appointed senator. His father had selected one of the noblest heiresses of Savoy to be the partner of his future life, but Francis declared his intention of embracing the ecclesiastical life. A sharp struggle ensued. His father would not consent to see his expectations thwarted. Then Claude de Granier, Bishop of Geneva, obtained for Francis, on his own initiative, the position of Provost of the Chapter of Geneva, a post in the patronage of the pope. It was the highest office in the diocese, M. de Boisy yielded and Francis received Holy Orders (1593).

From the time of the Reformation the seat of the Bishopric of Geneva had been fixed at Annecy. There with apostolic zeal, the new provost devoted himself to preaching, hearing confessions, and the other work of his ministry. In the following year (1594) he volunteered to evangelize Le Chablais, where the Genevans had imposed the Reformed Faith, and which had just been restored to the Duchy of Savoy. He made his headquarters in the fortress of Allinges. Risking his life, he journeyed through the entire district, preaching constantly; by dint of zeal, learning, kindness and holiness he at last obtained a hearing. He then settled in Thonon, the chief town. He confuted the preachers sent by Geneva to oppose him; he converted the syndic and several prominent Calvinists. At the request of the pope, Clement VIII, he went to Geneva to interview Theodore Beza, who was called the Patriarch of the Reformation. The latter received him kindly and seemed for a while shaken, but had not the courage to take the final steps. A large part of the inhabitants of Le Chablais returned to the true fold (1597 and 1598). Claude de Granier then chose Francis as his coadjutor, in spite of his refusal, and sent him to Rome (1599).

Pope Clement VIII ratified the choice; but he wished to examine the candidate personally, in presence of the Sacred College. The improvised examination was a triumph for Francis. "Drink, my son", said the Pope to him. "from your cistern, and from your living wellspring; may your waters issue forth, and may they become public fountains where the world may quench its thirst." The prophesy was to be realized. On his return from Rome the religious affairs of the territory of Gex, a dependency of France, necessitated his going to Paris. There the coadjutor formed an intimate friendship with Cardinal de Bérulle, Antoine Deshayes, secretary of Henry IV, and Henry IV himself, who wished "to make a third in this fair friendship" (être de tiers dans cette belle amitié). The king made him preach the Lent at Court, and wished to keep him in France. He urged him to continue, by his sermons and writings, to teach those souls that had to live in the world how to have confidence in God, and how to be genuinely and truly pious - graces of which he saw the great necessity.

On the death of Claude de Granier, Francis was consecrated Bishop of Geneva (1602). His first step was to institute catechetical instructions for the faithful, both young and old. He made prudent regulations for the guidance of his clergy. He carefully visited the parishes scattered through the rugged mountains of his diocese. He reformed the religious communities. His goodness, patience and mildness became proverbial. He had an intense love for the poor, especially those who were of respectable family. His food was plain, his dress and his household simple. He completely dispensed with superfluities and lived with the greatest economy, in order to be able to provide more abundantly for the wants of the needy. He heard confessions, gave advice, and preached incessantly. He wrote innumerable letters (mainly letters of direction) and found time to publish the numerous works mentioned below. Together with St. Jane Frances de Chantal, he founded (1607) the Institute of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, for young girls and widows who, feeling themselves called to the religious life, have not sufficient strength, or lack inclination, for the corporal austerities of the great orders. His zeal extended beyond the limits of his own diocese. He delivered the Lent and Advent discourses which are still famous - those at Dijon (1604), where he first met the Baroness de Chantal; at Chambéry (1606); at Grenoble (1616, 1617, 1618), where he converted the Maréchal de Lesdiguières. During his last stay in Paris (November, 1618, to September, 1619) he had to go into the pulpit each day to satisfy the pious wishes of those who thronged to hear him. "Never", said they, "have such holy, such apostolic sermons been preached." He came into contact here with all the distinguished ecclesiastics of the day, and in particular with St. Vincent de Paul. His friends tried energetically to induce him to remain in France, offering him first the wealthy Abbey of Ste. Geneviève and then the coadjutor-bishopric of Paris, but he refused all to return to Annecy.

In 1622 he had to accompany the Court of Savoy into France. At Lyons he insisted on occupying a small, poorly furnished room in a house belonging to the gardener of the Visitation Convent. There, on 27 December, he was seized with apoplexy. He received the last sacraments and made his profession of faith, repeating constantly the words: "God's will be done! Jesus, my God and my all!" He died next day, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Immense crowds flocked to visit his remains, which the people of Lyons were anxious to keep in their city. With much difficulty his body was brought back to Annecy, but his heart was left at Lyons. A great number of wonderful favours have been obtained at his tomb in the Visitation Convent of Annecy. His heart, at the time of the French Revolution, was carried by the Visitation nuns from Lyons to Venice, where it is venerated to-day. St. Francis de Sales was beatified in 1661, and canonized by Alexander VII in 1665; he was proclaimed Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius IX, in 1877.

The following is a list of the principal works of the holy Doctor:

(1) "Controversies", leaflets which the zealous missioner scattered among the inhabitants of Le Chablais in the beginning, when t hese people did not venture to come and hear him preach. They form a complete proof of the Catholic Faith. In the first part, the author defends the authority of the Church, and in the second and third parts, the rules of faith, which were not observed by the heretical ministers. The primacy of St. Peter is amply vindicated.

(2) "Defense of the Standard of the Cross", a demonstration of the virtue

• of the True Cross;
• of the Crucifix;
• of the Sign of the Cross;
• an explanation of the Veneration of the Cross.

(3) "An Introduction to the Devout Life", a work intended to lead "Philothea", the soul living in the world, into the paths of devotion, that is to say, of true and solid piety. Every one should strive to become pious, and "it is an error, it is even a heresy", to hold that piety is incompatible with any state of life. In the first part the author helps the soul to free itself from all inclination to, or affection for, sin; in the second, he teaches it how to be united to God by prayer and the sacraments; in the third, he exercises it in the practice of virtue; in the fourth, he strengthens it against temptation; in the fifth, he teaches it how to form its resolutions and to persevere. The "Introduction", which is a masterpiece of psychology, practical morality, and common sense, was translated into nearly every language even in the lifetime of the author, and it has since gone through innumerable editions.

(4) "Treatise on the Love of God", an authoritative work which reflects perfectly the mind and heart of Francis de Sales as a great genius and a great saint. It contains twelve books. The first four give us a history, or rather explain the theory, of Divine love, its birth in the soul, its growth, its perfection, and its decay and annihilation; the fifth book shows that this love is twofold - the love of complacency and the love of benevolence; the sixth and seventh treat of affective love, which is practised in prayer; the eight and ninth deal with effective love, that is, conformity to the will of God, and submission to His good pleasure. The last three resume what has preceded and teach how to apply practically the lessons taught therein.

(5) "Spiritual Conferences"; familiar conversations on religious virtues addressed to the sisters of the Visitation and collected by them. We find in them that practical common sense, keenness of perception and delicacy of feeling which were characteristic of the kind-hearted and energetic Saint.

(6) "Sermons". - These are divided into two classes: those composed previously to his consecration as a bishop, and which he himself wrote out in full; and the discourses he delivered when a bishop, of which, as a rule, only outlines and synopses have been preserved. Some of the latter, however, were taken down in extenso by his hearers. Pius IX, in his Bull proclaiming him Doctor of the Church calls the Saint "The Master and Restorer of Sacred Eloquence". He is one of those who at the beginning of the seventeenth century formed the beautiful French language; he foreshadows and prepares the way for the great sacred orators about to appear. He speaks simply, naturally, and from his heart. To speak well we need only love well, was his maxim. His mind was imbued with the Holy Writings, which he comments, and explains, and applies practically with no less accuracy than grace.

(7) "Letters", mostly letters of direction, in which the minister of God effaces himself and teaches the soul to listen to God, the only true director. The advice given is suited to all the circumstances and necessities of life and to all persons of good will. While trying to efface his own personality in these letters, the saint makes himself known to us and unconsciously discovers to us the treasures of his soul.

(8) A large number of very precious treatises or opuscula.

Migne (5 vols., quarto) and Vivès (12 vols., octavo, Paris) have edited the works of St. Francis de Sales. But the edition which we may call definitive was published at Annecy in 1892, by the English Benedictine, Dom Mackey: a work remarkable for its typographical execution, the brilliant criticism that settles the text, the large quantity of hitherto unedited matter, and the interesting study accompanying each volume. Dom Mackey published twelve volumes. Father Navatel, S.J., is continuing the work. We may give here a brief résumé of the spiritual teaching contained in these works, of which the Church has said: "The writings of Francis de Sales, filled with celestial doctrine are a bright light in the Church, pointing out to souls an easy and safe way to arrive at the perfection of a Christian life." (Breviarium Romanum, 29 January, lect. VI.)

There are two elements in the spiritual life: first, a struggle against our lower nature; secondly, union of our wills with God, in other words, penance and love. St. Francis de Sales looks chiefly to love. Not that he neglects penance, which is absolutely necessary, but he wishes it to be practised from a motive of love. He requires mortification of the senses, but he relies first on mortification of the mind, the will, and the heart. This interior mortification he requires to be unceasing and always accompanied by love. The end to be realized is a life of loving, simple, generous, and constant fidelity to the will of God, which is nothing else than our present duty. The model proposed is Christ, whom we must ever keep before our eyes. "You will study His countenance, and perform your actions as He did" (Introd., 2nd part, ch. i). The practical means of arriving at this perfection are: remembrance of the presence of God, filial prayer, a right intention in all our actions, and frequent recourse to God by pious and confiding ejaculations and interior aspirations.

Besides the Institute of the Visitation, which he founded, the nineteenth century has seen associations of the secular clergy and pious laymen, and several religious congregations, formed under the patronage of the holy Doctor. Among them we may mention the Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales, of Annecy; the Salesians, founded at Turin by the Venerable Don Bosco, specially devoted to the Christian and technical education of the children of the poorer classes; the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, established at Troyes (France) by Father Brisson, who try to realize in the religious and priestly life the spirit of the holy Doctor, such as we have described it, and such as he bequeathed it to the nuns of the Visitation.

MACKEY, OEuvres de St François de Sales (Annecy, 1892-); CHARLES-AUGUSTE DE SALES, Histoire du Bienheureux François de Sales (2nd ed., Paris, 1885); CAMUS, Esprit de S. François de Sales (2d ed., Paris, 1833); and in Collection S. Honore d'Eylau (Paris, 1904); Vie de S. François de Sales by HAMON (Paris); PÉRENNÈS (Paris); DE MARGERIE (Paris); STROWSKI, St. François de Sales (Paris); Annales Salesiennes in Revu Mensuelle (Paris, 1906, etc.). MACKEY has given an English translation of the Letters to Persons in the World, and of the Letters to Persons in Religion (London); he has also published noteworthy articles on St. Francis de Sales as an Orator (London) and St. Francis de Sales as a Director in Am. Eccl. Rev. (1898).

RAPHAEL PERNIN

St. Francis of Assisi

Founder of the Franciscan Order, born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1181 or 1182 -- the exact year is uncertain; died there, 3 October, 1226.

His father, Pietro Bernardone, was a wealthy Assisian cloth merchant. Of his mother, Pica, little is known, but she is said to have belonged to a noble family of Provence. Francis was one of several children. The legend that he was born in a stable dates from the fifteenth century only, and appears to have originated in the desire of certain writers to make his life resemble that of Christ. At baptism the saint received the name of Giovanni, which his father afterwards altered to Francesco, through fondness it would seem for France, whither business had led him at the time of his son's birth. In any case, since the child was renamed in infancy, the change can hardly have had anything to do with his aptitude for learning French, as some have thought.

Francis received some elementary instruction from the priests of St. George's at Assisi, though he learned more perhaps in the school of the Troubadours, who were just then making for refinement in Italy. However this may be, he was not very studious, and his literary education remained incomplete. Although associated with his father in trade, he showed little liking for a merchant's career, and his parents seemed to have indulged his every whim. Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, speaks in very severe terms of Francis's youth. Certain it is that the saint's early life gave no presage of the golden years that were to come. No one loved pleasure more than Francis; he had a ready wit, sang merrily, delighted in fine clothes and showy display. Handsome, gay, gallant, and courteous, he soon became the prime favourite among the young nobles of Assisi, the foremost in every feat of arms, the leader of the civil revels, the very king of frolic. But even at this time Francis showed an instinctive sympathy with the poor, and though he spent money lavishly, it still flowed in such channels as to attest a princely magnanimity of spirit.

When about twenty, Francis went out with the townsmen to fight the Perugians in one of the petty skirmishes so frequent at that time between the rival cities. The Assisians were defeated on this occasion, and Francis, being among those taken prisoners, was held captive for more than a year in Perugia. A low fever which he there contracted appears to have turned his thoughts to the things of eternity; at least the emptiness of the life he had been leading came to him during that long illness. With returning health, however, Francis's eagerness after glory reawakened and his fancy wandered in search of victories; at length he resolved to embrace a military career, and circumstances seemed to favour his aspirations. A knight of Assisi was about to join "the gentle count", Walter of Brienne, who was then in arms in the Neapolitan States against the emperor, and Francis arranged to accompany him. His biographers tell us that the night before Francis set forth he had a strange dream, in which he saw a vast hall hung with armour all marked with the Cross. "These", said a voice, "are for you and your soldiers." "I know I shall be a great prince", exclaimed Francis exultingly, as he started for Apulia. But a second illness arrested his course at Spoleto. There, we are told, Francis had another dream in which the same voice bade him turn back to Assisi. He did so at once. This was in 1205.

Although Francis still joined at times in the noisy revels of his former comrades, his changed demeanour plainly showed that his heart was no longer with them; a yearning for the life of the spirit had already possessed it. His companions twitted Francis on his absent-mindedness and asked if he were minded to be married. "Yes", he replied, "I am about to take a wife of surpassing fairness." She was no other than Lady Poverty whom Dante and Giotto have wedded to his name, and whom even now he had begun to love. After a short period of uncertainty he began to seek in prayer and solitude the answer to his call; he had already given up his gay attire and wasteful ways. One day, while crossing the Umbrian plain on horseback, Francis unexpectedly drew near a poor leper. The sudden appearance of this repulsive object filled him with disgust and he instinctively retreated, but presently controlling his natural aversion he dismounted, embraced the unfortunate man, and gave him all the money he had. About the same time Francis made a pilgrimage to Rome. Pained at the miserly offerings he saw at the tomb of St. Peter, he emptied his purse thereon. Then, as if to put his fastidious nature to the test, he exchanged clothes with a tattered mendicant and stood for the rest of the day fasting among the horde of beggars at the door of the basilica.

Not long after his return to Assisi, whilst Francis was praying before an ancient crucifix in the forsaken wayside chapel of St. Damian's below the town, he heard a voice saying: "Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin." Taking this behest literally, as referring to the ruinous church wherein he knelt, Francis went to his father's shop, impulsively bundled together a load of coloured drapery, and mounting his horse hastened to Foligno, then a mart of some importance, and there sold both horse and stuff to procure the money needful for the restoration of St. Damian's. When, however, the poor priest who officiated there refused to receive the gold thus gotten, Francis flung it from him disdainfully. The elder Bernardone, a most niggardly man, was incensed beyond measure at his son's conduct, and Francis, to avert his father's wrath, hid himself in a cave near St. Damian's for a whole month. When he emerged from this place of concealment and returned to the town, emaciated with hunger and squalid with dirt, Francis was followed by a hooting rabble, pelted with mud and stones, and otherwise mocked as a madman. Finally, he was dragged home by his father, beaten, bound, and locked in a dark closet.

Freed by his mother during Bernardone's absence, Francis returned at once to St. Damian's, where he found a shelter with the officiating priest, but he was soon cited before the city consuls by his father. The latter, not content with having recovered the scattered gold from St. Damian's, sought also to force his son to forego his inheritance. This Francis was only too eager to do; he declared, however, that since he had entered the service of God he was no longer under civil jurisdiction. Having therefore been taken before the bishop, Francis stripped himself of the very clothes he wore, and gave them to his father, saying: "Hitherto I have called you my father on earth; henceforth I desire to say only 'Our Father who art in Heaven.'" Then and there, as Dante sings, were solemnized Francis's nuptials with his beloved spouse, the Lady Poverty, under which name, in the mystical language afterwards so familiar to him, he comprehended the total surrender of all worldly goods, honours, and privileges. And now Francis wandered forth into the hills behind Assisi, improvising hymns of praise as he went. "I am the herald of the great King", he declared in answer to some robbers, who thereupon despoiled him of all he had and threw him scornfully in a snow drift. Naked and half frozen, Francis crawled to a neighbouring monastery and there worked for a time as a scullion. At Gubbio, whither he went next, Francis obtained from a friend the cloak, girdle, and staff of a pilgrim as an alms. Returning to Assisi, he traversed the city begging stones for the restoration of St. Damian's. These he carried to the old chapel, set in place himself, and so at length rebuilt it. In the same way Francis afterwards restored two other deserted chapels, St. Peter's, some distance from the city, and St. Mary of the Angels, in the plain below it, at a spot called the Porziuncola. Meantime he redoubled his zeal in works of charity, more especially in nursing the lepers.

On a certain morning in 1208, probably 24 February, Francis was hearing Mass in the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, near which he had then built himself a hut; the Gospel of the day told how the disciples of Christ were to possess neither gold nor silver, nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, and that they were to exhort sinners to repentance and announce the Kingdom of God. Francis took these words as if spoken directly to himself, and so soon as Mass was over threw away the poor fragment left him of the world's goods, his shoes, cloak, pilgrim staff, and empty wallet. At last he had found his vocation. Having obtained a coarse woolen tunic of "beast colour", the dress then worn by the poorest Umbrian peasants, and tied it round him with a knotted rope, Francis went forth at once exhorting the people of the country-side to penance, brotherly love, and peace. The Assisians had already ceased to scoff at Francis; they now paused in wonderment; his example even drew others to him. Bernard of Quintavalle, a magnate of the town, was the first to join Francis, and he was soon followed by Peter of Cattaneo, a well-known canon of the cathedral. In true spirit of religious enthusiasm, Francis repaired to the church of St. Nicholas and sought to learn God's will in their regard by thrice opening at random the book of the Gospels on the altar. Each time it opened at passages where Christ told His disciples to leave all things and follow Him. "This shall be our rule of life", exclaimed Francis, and led his companions to the public square, where they forthwith gave away all their belongings to the poor. After this they procured rough habits like that of Francis, and built themselves small huts near his at the Porziuncola. A few days later Giles, afterwards the great ecstatic and sayer of "good words", became the third follower of Francis. The little band divided and went about, two and two, making such an impression by their words and behaviour that before long several other disciples grouped themselves round Francis eager to share his poverty, among them being Sabatinus, vir bonus et justus, Moricus, who had belonged to the Crucigeri, John of Capella, who afterwards fell away, Philip "the Long", and four others of whom we know only the names. When the number of his companions had increased to eleven, Francis found it expedient to draw up a written rule for them. This first rule, as it is called, of the Friars Minor has not come down to us in its original form, but it appears to have been very short and simple, a mere adaptation of the Gospel precepts already selected by Francis for the guidance of his first companions, and which he desired to practice in all their perfection. When this rule was ready the Penitents of Assisi, as Francis and his followers styled themselves, set out for Rome to seek the approval of the Holy See, although as yet no such approbation was obligatory. There are differing accounts of Francis's reception by Innocent III. It seems, however, that Guido, Bishop of Assisi, who was then in Rome, commended Francis to Cardinal John of St. Paul, and that at the instance of the latter, the pope recalled the saint whose first overtures he had, as it appears, somewhat rudely rejected. Moreover, in site of the sinister predictions of others in the Sacred College, who regarded the mode of life proposed by Francis as unsafe and impracticable, Innocent, moved it is said by a dream in which he beheld the Poor Man of Assisi upholding the tottering Lateran, gave a verbal sanction to the rule submitted by Francis and granted the saint and his companions leave to preach repentance everywhere. Before leaving Rome they all received the ecclesiastical tonsure, Francis himself being ordained deacon later on.

After their return to Assisi, the Friars Minor -- for thus Francis had names his brethren, either after the minores, or lower classes, as some think, or as others believe, with reference to the Gospel (Matthew 25:40-45), and as a perpetual reminder of their humility -- found shelter in a deserted hut at Rivo Torto in the plain below the city, but were forced to abandon this poor abode by a rough peasant who drove in his ass upon them. About 1211 they obtained a permanent foothold near Assisi, through the generosity of the Benedictines of Monte Subasio, who gave them the little chapel of St. Mary of the Angels or the Porziuncola. Adjoining this humble sanctuary, already dear to Francis, the first Franciscan convent was formed by the erection of a few small huts or cells of wattle, straw, and mud, and enclosed by a hedge. From this settlement, which became the cradle of the Franciscan Order (Caput et Mater Ordinis) and the central spot in the life of St. Francis, the Friars Minor went forth two by two exhorting the people of the surrounding country. Like children "careless of the day", they wandered from place to place singing in their joy, and calling themselves the Lord's minstrels. The wide world was their cloister; sleeping in haylofts, grottos, or church porches, they toiled with the labourers in the fields, and when none gave them work they would beg. In a short while Francis and his companions gained an immense influence, and men of different grades of life and ways of thought flocked to the order. Among the new recruits made about this time By Francis were the famous Three Companions, who afterwards wrote his life, namely: Angelus Tancredi, a noble cavalier; Leo, the saint's secretary and confessor; and Rufinus, a cousin of St. Clare; besides Juniper, "the renowned jester of the Lord".

During the Lent of 1212, a new joy, great as it was unexpected, came to Francis. Clare, a young heiress of Assisi, moved by the saint's preaching at the church of St. George, sought him out, and begged to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had founded. By his advice, Clare, who was then but eighteen, secretly left her father's house on the night following Palm Sunday, and with two companions went to the Porziuncola, where the friars met her in procession, carrying lighted torches. Then Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in the Minorite habit and thus received her to a life of poverty, penance, and seclusion. Clare stayed provisionally with some Benedictine nuns near Assisi, until Francis could provide a suitable retreat for her, and for St. Agnes, her sister, and the other pious maidens who had joined her. He eventually established them at St. Damian's, in a dwelling adjoining the chapel he had rebuilt with his own hands, which was now given to the saint by the Benedictines as domicile for his spiritual daughters, and which thus became the first monastery of the Second Franciscan Order of Poor Ladies, now known as Poor Clares.

In the autumn of the same year (1212) Francis's burning desire for the conversion of the Saracens led him to embark for Syria, but having been shipwrecked on the coast of Slavonia, he had to return to Ancona. The following spring he devoted himself to evangelizing Central Italy. About this time (1213) Francis received from Count Orlando of Chiusi the mountain of La Verna, an isolated peak among the Tuscan Apennines, rising some 4000 feet above the valley of the Casentino, as a retreat, "especially favourable for contemplation", to which he might retire from time to time for prayer and rest. For Francis never altogether separated the contemplative from the active life, as the several hermitages associated with his memory, and the quaint regulations he wrote for those living in them bear witness. At one time, indeed, a strong desire to give himself wholly to a life of contemplation seems to have possessed the saint. During the next year (1214) Francis set out for Morocco, in another attempt to reach the infidels and, if needs be, to shed his blood for the Gospel, but while yet in Spain was overtaken by so severe an illness that he was compelled to turn back to Italy once more.

Authentic details are unfortunately lacking of Francis's journey to Spain and sojourn there. It probably took place in the winter of 1214-1215. After his return to Umbria he received several noble and learned men into his order, including his future biographer Thomas of Celano. The next eighteen months comprise, perhaps, the most obscure period of the saint's life. That he took part in the Lateran Council of 1215 may well be, but it is not certain; we know from Eccleston, however, that Francis was present at the death of Innocent II, which took place at Perugia, in July 1216. Shortly afterwards, i.e. very early in the pontificate of Honorius III, is placed the concession of the famous Porziuncola Indulgence. It is related that once, while Francis was praying at the Porziuncola, Christ appeared to him and offered him whatever favour he might desire.The salvation of souls was ever the burden of Francis's prayers, and wishing moreover, to make his beloved Porziuncola a sanctuary where many might be saved, he begged a plenary Indulgence for all who, having confessed their sins, should visit the little chapel. Our Lord acceded to this request on condition that the pope should ratify the Indulgence. Francis thereupon set out for Perugia, with Brother Masseo, to find Honorius III. The latter, notwithstanding some opposition from the Curia at such an unheard-of favour, granted the Indulgence, restricting it, however, to one day yearly. He subsequently fixed 2 August in perpetuity, as the day for gaining this Porziuncola Indulgence, commonly known in Italy as il perdono d'Assisi. Such is the traditional account. The fact that there is no record of this Indulgence in either the papal or diocesan archives and no allusion to it in the earliest biographies of Francis or other contemporary documents has led some writers to reject the whole story. This argumentum ex silentio has, however, been met by M. Paul Sabatier, who in his critical edition of the "Tractatus de Indulgentia" of Fra Bartholi has adduced all the really credible evidence in its favour. But even those who regard the granting of this Indulgence as traditionally believed to be an established fact of history, admit that its early history is uncertain. (See PORTIUNCULA.)

The first general chapter of the Friars Minor was held in May, 1217, at Porziuncola, the order being divided into provinces, and an apportionment made of the Christian world into so many Franciscan missions. Tuscany, Lombardy, Provence, Spain, and Germany were assigned to five of Francis's principal followers; for himself the saint reserved France, and he actually set out for that kingdom, but on arriving at Florence, was dissuaded from going further by Cardinal Ugolino, who had been made protector of the order in 1216. He therefore sent in his stead Brother Pacificus, who in the world had been renowned as a poet, together with Brother Agnellus, who later on established the Friars Minor in England. Although success came indeed to Francis and his friars, with it came also opposition, and it was with a view to allaying any prejudices the Curia might have imbibed against their methods that Francis, at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino, went to Rome and preached before the pope and cardinals in the Lateran. This visit to the Eternal City, which took place 1217-18, was apparently the occasion of Francis's memorable meeting with St. Dominic. The year 1218 Francis devoted to missionary tours in Italy, which were a continual triumph for him. He usually preached out of doors, in the market-places, from church steps, from the walls of castle court- yards. Allured by the magic spell of his presence, admiring crowds, unused for the rest to anything like popular preaching in the vernacular, followed Francis from place to place hanging on his lips; church bells rang at his approach; processions of clergy and people advanced to meet him with music and singing; they brought the sick to him to bless and heal, and kissed the very ground on which he trod, and even sought to cut away pieces of his tunic. The extraordinary enthusiasm with which the saint was everywhere welcomed was equalled only by the immediate and visible result of his preaching. His exhortations of the people, for sermons they can hardly be called, short, homely, affectionate, and pathetic, touched even the hardest and most frivolous, and Francis became in sooth a very conqueror of souls. Thus it happened, on one occasion, while the saint was preaching at Camara, a small village near Assisi, that the whole congregation were so moved by his "words of spirit and life" that they presented themselves to him in a body and begged to be admitted into his order. It was to accede, so far as might be, to like requests that Francis devised his Third Order, as it is now called, of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, which he intended as a sort of middle state between the world and the cloister for those who could not leave their home or desert their wonted avocations in order to enter either the First Order of Friars Minor or the Second Order of Poor Ladies. That Francis prescribed particular duties for these tertiaries is beyond question. They were not to carry arms, or take oaths, or engage in lawsuits, etc. It is also said that he drew up a formal rule for them, but it is clear that the rule, confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289, does not, at least in the form in which it has come down to us, represent the original rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. In any event, it is customary to assign 1221 as the year of the foundation of this third order, but the date is not certain.

At the second general chapter (May, 1219) Francis, bent on realizing his project of evangelizing the infidels, assigned a separate mission to each of his foremost disciples, himself selecting the seat of war between the crusaders and the Saracens. With eleven companions, including Brother Illuminato and Peter of Cattaneo, Francis set sail from Ancona on 21 June, for Saint-Jean d'Acre, and he was present at the siege and taking of Damietta. After preaching there to the assembled Christian forces, Francis fearlessly passed over to the infidel camp, where he was taken prisoner and led before the sultan. According to the testimony of Jacques de Vitry, who was with the crusaders at Damietta, the sultan received Francis with courtesy, but beyond obtaining a promise from this ruler of more indulgent treatment for the Christian captives, the saint's preaching seems to have effected little. Before returning to Europe, the saint is believed to have visited Palestine and there obtained for the friars the foothold they still retain as guardians of the holy places. What is certain is that Francis was compelled to hasten back to Italy because of various troubles that had arisen there during his absence. News had reached him in the East that Matthew of Narni and Gregory of Naples, the two vicars-general whom he had left in charge of the order, had summoned a chapter which, among other innovations, sought to impose new fasts upon the friars, more severe than the rule required. Moreover, Cardinal Ugolino had conferred on the Poor Ladies a written rule which was practically that of the Benedictine nuns, and Brother Philip, whom Francis had charged with their interests, had accepted it. To make matters worse, John of Capella, one of the saint's first companions, had assembled a large number of lepers, both men and women, with a view to forming them into a new religious order, and had set out for Rome to seek approval for the rule he had drawn up for these unfortunates. Finally a rumour had been spread abroad that Francis was dead, so that when the saint returned to Italy with brother Elias -- he appeared to have arrived at Venice in July, 1220 -- a general feeling of unrest prevailed among the friars. Apart from these difficulties, the order was then passing through a period of transition. It had become evident that the simple, familiar, and unceremonious ways which had marked the Franciscan movement at its beginning were gradually disappearing, and that the heroic poverty practiced by Francis and his companions at the outset became less easy as the friars with amazing rapidity increased in number. And this Francis could not help seeing on his return. Cardinal Ugolino had already undertaken the task "of reconciling inspirations so unstudied and so free with an order of things they had outgrown." This remarkable man, who afterwards ascended the papal throne as Gregory IX, was deeply attached to Francis, whom he venerated as a saint and also, some writers tell us, managed as an enthusiast. That Cardinal Ugolino had no small share in bringing Francis's lofty ideals "within range and compass" seems beyond dispute, and it is not difficult to recognize his hand in the important changes made in the organization of the order in the so-called Chapter of Mats. At this famous assembly, held at Porziuncola at Whitsuntide, 1220 or 1221 (there is seemingly much room for doubt as to the exact date and number of the early chapters), about 5000 friars are said to have been present, besides some 500 applicants for admission to the order. Huts of wattle and mud afforded shelter for this multitude. Francis had purposely made no provision for them, but the charity of the neighbouring towns supplied them with food, while knights and nobles waited upon them gladly. It was on this occasion that Francis, harassed no doubt and disheartened at the tendency betrayed by a large number of the friars to relax the rigours of the rule, according to the promptings of human prudence, and feeling, perhaps unfitted for a place which now called largely for organizing abilities, relinquished his position as general of the order in favour of Peter of Cattaneo. But the latter died in less than a year, being succeeded as vicar-general by the unhappy Brother Elias, who continued in that office until the death of Francis. The saint, meanwhile, during the few years that remained in him, sought to impress on the friars by the silent teaching of personal example of what sort he would fain have them to be. Already, while passing through Bologna on his return from the East, Francis had refused to enter the convent there because he had heard it called the "House of the Friars" and because a studium had been instituted there. He moreover bade all the friars, even those who were ill, quit it at once, and it was only some time after, when Cardinal Ugolino had publicly declared the house to be his own property, that Francis suffered his brethren to re-enter it. Yet strong and definite as the saint's convictions were, and determinedly as his line was taken, he was never a slave to a theory in regard to the observances of poverty or anything else; about him indeed, there was nothing narrow or fanatical. As for his attitude towards study, Francis desiderated for his friars only such theological knowledge as was conformable to the mission of the order, which was before all else a mission of example. Hence he regarded the accumulation of books as being at variance with the poverty his friars professed, and he resisted the eager desire for mere book-learning, so prevalent in his time, in so far as it struck at the roots of that simplicity which entered so largely into the essence of his life and ideal and threatened to stifle the spirit of prayer, which he accounted preferable to all the rest.

In 1221, so some writers tell us, Francis drew up a new rule for the Friars Minor. Others regard this so-called Rule of 1221 not as a new rule, but as the first one which Innocent had orally approved; not, indeed, its original form, which we do not possess, but with such additions and modifications as it has suffered during the course of twelve years. However this may be, the composition called by some the Rule of 1221 is very unlike any conventional rule ever made. It was too lengthy and unprecise to become a formal rule, and two years later Francis retired to Fonte Colombo, a hermitage near Rieti, and rewrote the rule in more compendious form. This revised draft he entrusted to Brother Elias, who not long after declared he had lost it through negligence. Francis thereupon returned to the solitude of Fonte Colombo, and recast the rule on the same lines as before, its twenty-three chapters being reduced to twelve and some of its precepts being modified in certain details at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino. In this form the rule was solemnly approved by Honorius III, 29 November, 1223 (Litt. "Solet annuere"). This Second Rule, as it is usually called or Regula Bullata of the Friars Minor, is the one ever since professed throughout the First Order of St. Francis (see RULE OF SAINT FRANCIS). It is based on the three vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, special stress however being laid on poverty, which Francis sought to make the special characteristic of his order, and which became the sign to be contradicted. This vow of absolute poverty in the first and second orders and the reconciliation of the religious with the secular state in the Third Order of Penance are the chief novelties introduced by Francis in monastic regulation.

It was during Christmastide of this year (1223) that the saint conceived the idea of celebrating the Nativity "in a new manner", by reproducing in a church at Greccio the praesepio of Bethlehem, and he has thus come to be regarded as having inaugurated the population devotion of the Crib. Christmas appears indeed to have been the favourite feast of Francis, and he wished to persuade the emperor to make a special law that men should then provide well for the birds and the beasts, as well as for the poor, so that all might have occasion to rejoice in the Lord.

Early in August, 1224, Francis retired with three companions to "that rugged rock 'twixt Tiber and Arno", as Dante called La Verna, there to keep a forty days fast in preparation for Michaelmas. During this retreat the sufferings of Christ became more than ever the burden of his meditations; into few souls, perhaps, had the full meaning of the Passion so deeply entered. It was on or about the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) while praying on the mountainside, that he beheld the marvellous vision of the seraph, as a sequel of which there appeared on his body the visible marks of the five wounds of the Crucified which, says an early writer, had long since been impressed upon his heart. Brother Leo, who was with St. Francis when he received the stigmata, has left us in his note to the saint's autograph blessing, preserved at Assisi, a clear and simple account of the miracle, which for the rest is better attested than many another historical fact. The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward. After the reception of the stigmata, Francis suffered increasing pains throughout his frail body, already broken by continual mortification. For, condescending as the saint always was to the weaknesses of others, he was ever so unsparing towards himself that at the last he felt constrained to ask pardon of "Brother Ass", as he called his body, for having treated it so harshly. Worn out, moreover, as Francis now was by eighteen years of unremitting toil, his strength gave way completely, and at times his eyesight so far failed him that he was almost wholly blind. During an access of anguish, Francis paid a last visit to St. Clare at St. Damian's, and it was in a little hut of reeds, made for him in the garden there, that the saint composed that "Canticle of the Sun", in which his poetic genius expands itself so gloriously. This was in September, 1225. Not long afterwards Francis, at the urgent instance of Brother Elias, underwent an unsuccessful operation for the eyes, at Rieti. He seems to have passed the winter 1225-26 at Siena, whither he had been taken for further medical treatment. In April, 1226, during an interval of improvement, Francis was moved to Cortona, and it is believed to have been while resting at the hermitage of the Celle there, that the saint dictated his testament, which he describes as a "reminder, a warning, and an exhortation". In this touching document Francis, writing from the fullness of his heart, urges anew with the simple eloquence, the few, but clearly defined, principles that were to guide his followers, implicit obedience to superiors as holding the place of God, literal observance of the rule "without gloss", especially as regards poverty, and the duty of manual labor, being solemnly enjoined on all the friars. Meanwhile alarming dropsical symptoms had developed, and it was in a dying condition that Francis set out for Assisi. A roundabout route was taken by the little caravan that escorted him, for it was feared to follow the direct road lest the saucy Perugians should attempt to carry Francis off by force so that he might die in their city, which would thus enter into possession of his coveted relics. It was therefore under a strong guard that Francis, in July, 1226, was finally borne in safety to the bishop's palace in his native city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the entire populace. In the early autumn Francis, feeling the hand of death upon him, was carried to his beloved Porziuncola, that he might breathe his last sigh where his vocation had been revealed to him and whence his order had struggled into sight. On the way thither he asked to be set down, and with painful effort he invoked a beautiful blessing on Assisi, which, however, his eyes could no longer discern. The saint's last days were passed at the Porziuncola in a tiny hut, near the chapel, that served as an infirmary. The arrival there about this time of the Lady Jacoba of Settesoli, who had come with her two sons and a great retinue to bid Francis farewell, caused some consternation, since women were forbidden to enter the friary. But Francis in his tender gratitude to this Roman noblewoman, made an exception in her favour, and "Brother Jacoba", as Francis had named her on account of her fortitude, remained to the last. On the eve of his death, the saint, in imitation of his Divine Master, had bread brought to him and broken. This he distributed among those present, blessing Bernard of Quintaville, his first companion, Elias, his vicar, and all the others in order. "I have done my part," he said next, "may Christ teach you to do yours." Then wishing to give a last token of detachment and to show he no longer had anything in common with the world, Francis removed his poor habit and lay down on the bare ground, covered with a borrowed cloth, rejoicing that he was able to keep faith with his Lady Poverty to the end. After a while he asked to have read to him the Passion according to St. John, and then in faltering tones he himself intoned Psalm cxli. At the concluding verse, "Bring my soul out of prison", Francis was led away from earth by "Sister Death", in whose praise he had shortly before added a new strophe to his "Canticle of the Sun". It was Saturday evening, 3 October, 1226, Francis being then in the forty-fifth year of his age, and the twentieth from his perfect conversion to Christ.

The saint had, in his humility, it is said, expressed a wish to be buried on the Colle d'Inferno, a despised hill without Assisi, where criminals were executed. However this may be, his body was, on 4 October, borne in triumphant procession to the city, a halt being made at St. Damian's, that St. Clare and her companions might venerate the sacred stigmata now visible to all, and it was placed provisionally in the church of St. George (now within the enclosure of the monastery of St. Clare), where the saint had learned to read and had first preached. Many miracles are recorded to have taken place at his tomb. Francis was canonized at St. George's by Gregory IX, 16 July, 1228. On that day following the pope laid the first stone of the great double church of St. Francis, erected in honour of the new saint, and thither on 25 May, 1230, Francis's remains were secretly transferred by Brother Elias and buried far down under the high altar in the lower church. Here, after lying hidden for six centuries, like that of St. Clare's, Francis's coffin was found, 12 December, 1818, as a result of a toilsome search lasting fifty-two nights. This discovery of the saint's body is commemorated in the order by a special office on 12 December, and that of his translation by another on 25 May. His feast is kept throughout the Church on 4 October, and the impression of the stigmata on his body is celebrated on 17 September.

It has been said with pardonable warmth that Francis entered into glory in his lifetime, and that he is the one saint whom all succeeding generations have agreed in canonizing. Certain it is that those also who care little about the order he founded, and who have but scant sympathy with the Church to which he ever gave his devout allegiance, even those who know that Christianity to be Divine, find themselves, instinctively as it were, looking across the ages for guidance to the wonderful Umbrian Poverello, and invoking his name in grateful remembrance. This unique position Francis doubtless owes in no small measure to his singularly lovable and winsome personality. Few saints ever exhaled "the good odour of Christ" to such a degree as he. There was about Francis, moreover, a chivalry and a poetry which gave to his other- worldliness a quite romantic charm and beauty. Other saints have seemed entirely dead to the world around them, but Francis was ever thoroughly in touch with the spirit of the age. He delighted in the songs of Provence, rejoiced in the new-born freedom of his native city, and cherished what Dante calls the pleasant sound of his dear land. And this exquisite human element in Francis's character was the key to that far-reaching, all-embracing sympathy, which may be almost called his characteristic gift. In his heart, as an old chronicler puts it, the whole world found refuge, the poor, the sick and the fallen being the objects of his solicitude in a more special manner. Heedless as Francis ever was of the world's judgments in his own regard, it was always his constant care to respect the opinions of all and to wound the feelings of none. Wherefore he admonishes the friars to use only low and mean tables, so that "if a beggar were to come to sit down near them he might believe that he was but with his equals and need not blush on account of his poverty." One night, we are told, the friary was aroused by the cry "I am dying." "Who are you", exclaimed Francis arising, "and why are dying?" "I am dying of hunger", answered the voice of one who had been too prone to fasting. Whereupon Francis had a table laid out and sat down beside the famished friar, and lest the latter might be ashamed to eat alone, ordered all the other brethren to join in the repast. Francis's devotedness in consoling the afflicted made him so condescending that he shrank not from abiding with the lepers in their loathly lazar-houses and from eating with them out of the same platter. But above all it is his dealings with the erring that reveal the truly Christian spirit of his charity. "Saintlier than any of the saint", writes Celano, "among sinners he was as one of themselves". Writing to a certain minister in the order, Francis says: "Should there be a brother anywhere in the world who has sinned, no matter how great soever his fault may be, let him not go away after he has once seen thy face without showing pity towards him; and if he seek not mercy, ask him if he does not desire it. And by this I will know if you love God and me." Again, to medieval notions of justice the evil-doer was beyond the law and there was no need to keep faith with him. But according to Francis, not only was justice due even to evil-doers, but justice must be preceded by courtesy as by a herald. Courtesy, indeed, in the saint's quaint concept, was the younger sister of charity and one of the qualities of God Himself, Who "of His courtesy", he declares, "gives His sun and His rain to the just and the unjust". This habit of courtesy Francis ever sought to enjoin on his disciples. "Whoever may come to us", he writes, "whether a friend or a foe, a thief or a robber, let him be kindly received", and the feast which he spread for the starving brigands in the forest at Monte Casale sufficed to show that "as he taught so he wrought". The very animals found in Francis a tender friend and protector; thus we find him pleading with the people of Gubbio to feed the fierce wolf that had ravished their flocks, because through hunger "Brother Wolf" had done this wrong. And the early legends have left us many an idyllic picture of how beasts and birds alike susceptible to the charm of Francis's gentle ways, entered into loving companionship with him; how the hunted leveret sought to attract his notice; how the half-frozen bees crawled towards him in the winter to be fed; how the wild falcon fluttered around him; how the nightingale sang with him in sweetest content in the ilex grove at the Carceri, and how his "little brethren the birds" listened so devoutly to his sermon by the roadside near Bevagna that Francis chided himself for not having thought of preaching to them before. Francis's love of nature also stands out in bold relief in the world he moved in. He delighted to commune with the wild flowers, the crystal spring, and the friendly fire, and to greet the sun as it rose upon the fair Umbrian vale. In this respect, indeed, St. Francis's "gift of sympathy" seems to have been wider even than St.Paul's, for we find no evidence in the great Apostle of a love for nature or for animals.

Hardly less engaging than his boundless sense of fellow-feeling was Francis's downright sincerity and artless simplicity. "Dearly beloved," he once began a sermon following upon a severe illness, "I have to confess to God and you that during this Lent I have eaten cakes made with lard." And when the guardian insisted for the sake of warmth upon Francis having a fox skin sewn under his worn-out tunic, the saint consented only upon condition that another skin of the same size be sewn outside. For it was his singular study never to hide from men that which known to God. "What a man is in the sight of God," he was wont to repeat, "so much he is and no more" -- a saying which passed into the "Imitation", and has been often quoted. Another winning trait of Francis which inspires the deepest affection was his unswerving directness of purpose and unfaltering following after an ideal. "His dearest desire so long as he lived", Celano tells us, "was ever to seek among wise and simple, perfect and imperfect, the means to walk in the way of truth." To Francis love was the truest of all truths; hence his deep sense of personal responsibility towards his fellows. The love of Christ and Him Crucified permeated the whole life and character of Francis, and he placed the chief hope of redemption and redress for a suffering humanity in the literal imitation of his Divine Master. The saint imitated the example of Christ as literally as it was in him to do so; barefoot, and in absolute poverty, he proclaimed the reign of love. This heroic imitation of Christ's poverty was perhaps the distinctive mark of Francis's vocation, and he was undoubtedly, as Bossuet expresses it, the most ardent, enthusiastic, and desperate lover of poverty the world has yet seen. After money Francis most detested discord and divisions. Peace, therefore, became his watchword, and the pathetic reconciliation he effected in his last days between the Bishop and Potesta of Assisi is bit one instance out of many of his power to quell the storms of passion and restore tranquility to hearts torn asunder by civil strife. The duty of a servant of God, Francis declared, was to lift up the hearts of men and move them to spiritual gladness. Hence it was not "from monastic stalls or with the careful irresponsibility of the enclosed student" that the saint and his followers addressed the people" "they dwelt among them and grappled with the evils of the system under which the people groaned". They worked in return for their fare, doing for the lowest the most menial labour, and speaking to the poorest words of hope such as the world had not heard for many a day. In this wise Francis bridged the chasm between an aristocratic clergy and the common people, and though he taught no new doctrine, he so far repopularized the old one given on the Mount that the Gospel took on a new life and called forth a new love.

Such in briefest outline are some of the salient features which render the figure of Francis one of such supreme attraction that all manner of men feel themselves drawn towards him, with a sense of personal attachment. Few, however, of those who feel the charm of Francis's personality may follow the saint to his lonely height of rapt communion with God. For, however engaging a "minstrel of the Lord", Francis was none the less a profound mystic in the truest sense of the word. The whole world was to him one luminous ladder, mounting upon the rungs of which he approached and beheld God. It is very misleading, however, to portray Francis as living "at a height where dogma ceases to exist", and still further from the truth to represent the trend of his teaching as one in which orthodoxy is made subservient to "humanitarianism". A very cursory inquiry into Francis's religious belief suffices to show that it embraced the entire Catholic dogma, nothing more or less. If then the saint's sermons were on the whole moral rather than doctrinal, it was less because he preached to meet the wants of his day, and those whom he addressed had not strayed from dogmatic truth; they were still "hearers", if not "doers", of the Word. For this reason Francis set aside all questions more theoretical than practical, and returned to the Gospel.

Again, to see in Francis only the loving friend of all God's creatures, the joyous singer of nature, is to overlook altogether that aspect of his work which is the explanation of all the rest -- its supernatural side. Few lives have been more wholly imbued with the supernatural, as even Renan admits. Nowhere, perhaps, can there be found a keener insight into the innermost world of spirit, yet so closely were the supernatural and the natural blended in Francis, that his very asceticism was often clothed in the guide of romance, as witness his wooing the Lady Poverty, in a sense that almost ceased to be figurative. For Francis's singularly vivid imagination was impregnate with the imagery of the chanson de geste, and owing to his markedly dramatic tendency, he delighted in suiting his action to his thought. So, too, the saint's native turn for the picturesque led him to unite religion and nature. He found in all created things, however trivial, some reflection of the Divine perfection, and he loved to admire in them the beauty, power, wisdom, and goodness of their Creator. And so it came to pass that he saw sermons even in stones, and good in everything. Moreover, Francis's simple, childlike nature fastened on the thought, that if all are from one Father then all are real kin. Hence his custom of claiming brotherhood with all manner of animate and inanimate objects. The personification, therefore, of the elements in the "Canticle of the Sun" is something more than a mere literary figure. Francis's love of creatures was not simply the offspring of a soft or sentimental disposition; it arose rather from that deep and abiding sense of the presence of God, which underlay all he said and did. Even so, Francis's habitual cheerfulness was not that of a careless nature, or of one untouched by sorrow. None witnessed Francis's hidden struggles, his long agonies of tears, or his secret wrestlings in prayer. And if we meet him making dumb-show of music, by playing a couple of sticks like a violin to give vent to his glee, we also find him heart-sore with foreboding at the dire dissensions in the order which threatened to make shipwreck of his ideal. Nor were temptations or other weakening maladies of the soul wanting to the saint at any time. Francis's lightsomeness had its source in that entire surrender of everything present and passing, in which he had found the interior liberty of the children of God; it drew its strength from his intimate union with Jesus in the Holy Communion. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, being an extension of the Passion, held a preponderant place in the life of Francis, and he had nothing more at heart than all that concerned the cultus of the Blessed Sacrament. Hence we not only hear of Francis conjuring the clergy to show befitting respect for everything connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but we also see him sweeping out poor churches, questing sacred vessels for them, and providing them with altar-breads made by himself. So great, indeed, was Francis's reverence for the priesthood, because of its relation to the Adorable Sacrament, that in his humility he never dared to aspire to that dignity. Humility was, no doubt, the saint's ruling virtue. The idol of an enthusiastic popular devotion, he ever truly believed himself less than the least. Equally admirable was Francis's prompt and docile obedience to the voice of grace within him, even in the early days of his ill-defined ambition, when the spirit of interpretation failed him. Later on, the saint, with as clear as a sense of his message as any prophet ever had, yielded ungrudging submission to what constituted ecclesiastical authority. No reformer, moreover, was ever, less aggressive than Francis. His apostolate embodied the very noblest spirit of reform; he strove to correct abuses by holding up an ideal. He stretched out his arms in yearning towards those who longed for the "better gifts". The others he left alone.

And thus, without strife or schism, God's Poor Little Man of Assisi became the means of renewing the youth of the Church and of imitating the most potent and popular religious movement since the beginnings of Christianity. No doubt this movement had its social as well as its religious side. That the Third Order of St. Francis went far towards re-Christianizing medieval society is a matter of history. However, Francis's foremost aim was a religious one. To rekindle the love of God in the world and reanimate the life of the spirit in the hearts of men -- such was his mission. But because St. Francis sought first the Kingdom of God and His justice, many other things were added unto him. And his own exquisite Franciscan spirit, as it is called, passing out into the wide world, became an abiding source of inspiration. Perhaps it savours of exaggeration to say, as has been said, that "all the threads of civilization in the subsequent centuries seem to hark back to Francis", and that since his day "the character of the whole Roman Catholic Church is visibly Umbrian". It would be difficult, none the less, to overestimate the effect produced by Francis upon the mind of his time, or the quickening power he wielded on the generations which have succeeded him. To mention two aspects only of his all-pervading influence, Francis must surely be reckoned among those to whom the world of art and letters is deeply indebted. Prose, as Arnold observes, could not satisfy the saint's ardent soul, so he made poetry. He was, indeed, too little versed in the laws of composition to advance far in that direction. But his was the first cry of a nascent poetry which found its highest expression in the "Divine Comedy"; wherefore Francis has been styled the precursor of Dante. What the saint did was to teach a people "accustomed to the artificial versification of courtly Latin and Provencal poets, the use of their native tongue in simple spontaneous hymns, which became even more popular with the Laudi and Cantici of his poet-follower Jacopone of Todi". In so far, moreover, as Francis's repraesentatio, as Salimbene calls it, of the stable at Bethlehem is the first mystery-play we hear of in Italy, he is said to have borne a part in the revival of the drama. However this may be, if Francis's love of song called forth the beginnings of Italian verse, his life no less brought about the birth of Italian art. His story, says Ruskin, became a passionate tradition painted everywhere with delight. Full of colour, dramatic possibilities, and human interest, the early Franciscan legend afforded the most popular material for painters since the life of Christ. No sooner, indeed did Francis's figure make an appearance in art than it became at once a favourite subject, especially with the mystical Umbrian School. So true is this that it has been said we might by following his familiar figure "construct a history of Christian art, from the predecessors of Cimabue down to Guido Reni, Rubens, and Van Dyck".

Probably the oldest likeness of Francis that has come down to us is that preserved in the Sacro Speco at Subiaco. It is said that it was painted by a Benedictine monk during the saint's visit there, which may have been in 1218. The absence of the stigmata, halo, and title of saint in this fresco form its chief claim to be considered a contemporary picture; it is not, however, a real portrait in the modern sense of the word, and we are dependent for the traditional presentment of Francis rather on artists' ideals, like the Della Robbia statue at the Porziuncola, which is surely the saint's vera effigies, as no Byzantine so-called portrait can ever be, and the graphic description of Francis given by Celano (Vita Prima, c.lxxxiii). Of less than middle height, we are told, and frail in form, Francis had a long yet cheerful face and soft but strong voice, small brilliant black eyes, dark brown hair, and a sparse beard. His person was in no way imposing, yet there was about the saint a delicacy, grace, and distinction which made him most attractive.

The literary materials for the history of St. Francis are more than usually copious and authentic. There are indeed few if any medieval lives more thoroughly documented. We have in the first place the saint's own writings. These are not voluminous and were never written with a view to setting forth his ideas systematically, yet they bear the stamp of his personality and are marked by the same unvarying features of his preaching. A few leading thoughts taken "from the words of the Lord" seemed to him all sufficing, and these he repeats again and again, adapting them to the needs of the different persons whom he addresses. Short, simple, and informal, Francis's writings breathe the unstudied love of the Gospel and enforce the same practical morality, while they abound in allegories and personification and reveal an intimate interweaving of Biblical phraseology. Not all the saint's writings have come down to us, and not a few of these formerly attributed to him are now with greater likelihood ascribed to others. The extant and authentic opuscula of Francis comprise, besides the rule of the Friars Minor and some fragments of the other Seraphic legislation, several letters, including one addressed "to all the Christians who dwell in the whole world," a series of spiritual counsels addressed to his disciples, the "Laudes Creaturarum" or "Canticle of the Sun", and some lesser praises, an Office of the Passion compiled for his own use, and few other orisons which show us Francis even as Celano saw him, "not so much a man's praying as prayer itself". In addition to the saint's writings the sources of the history of Francis include a number of early papal bulls and some other diplomatic documents, as they are called, bearing upon his life and work. Then come the biographies properly so called. These include the lives written 1229-1247 by Thomas of Celano, one of Francis's followers; a joint narrative of his life compiled by Leo, Rufinus, and Angelus, intimate companions of the saint, in 1246; and the celebrated legend of St. Bonaventure, which appeared about 1263; besides a somewhat more polemic legend called the "Speculum Perfectionis", attributed to Brother Leo, the sate of which is a matter of controversy. There are also several important thirteenth- century chronicles of the order, like those of Jordan, Eccleston, and Bernard of Besse, and not a few later works, such as the "Chronica XXIV. Generalium" and the "Liber de Conformitate", which are in some sort a continuation of them. It is upon these works that all the later biographies of Francis's life are based.

Recent years have witnessed a truly remarkable upgrowth of interest in the life and work of St. Francis, more especially among non-Catholics, and Assisi has become in consequence the goal of a new race of pilgrims. This interest, for the most part literary and academic, is centered mainly in the study of the primitive documents relating to the saint's history and the beginnings of the Franciscan Order. Although inaugurated some years earlier, this movement received its greatest impulse from the publication in 1894 of Paul Sabatier's "Vie de S. François", a work which was almost simultaneously crowned by the French Academy and place upon the Index. In spite of the author's entire lack of sympathy with the saint's religious standpoint, his biography of Francis bespeaks vast erudition, deep research, and rare critical insight, and it has opened up a new era in the study of Franciscan resources. To further this study and International Society of Franciscan Studies was founded at Assisi in 1902, the aim of which is to collect a complete library of works on Franciscan history and to compile a catalogue of scattered Franciscan manuscripts; several periodicals, devoted to Franciscan documents and discussions exclusively, have moreover been established in different countries. Although a large literature has grown up around the figure of the Poverello within a short time, nothing new of essential value has been added to what was already known of the saint. The energetic research work of recent years has resulted in the recovery of several important early texts, and has called forth many really fine critical studies dealing with the sources, but the most welcome feature of the modern interest in Franciscan origins has been the careful re-editing and translating of Francis's own writings and of nearly all the contemporary manuscript authorities bearing on his life. Not a few of the controverted questions connected therewith are of considerable import, even to those not especially students of the Franciscan legend, but they could not be made intelligible within the limits of the present article. It must suffice, moreover, to indicate only some of the chief works on the life of St. Francis.

The writings of St. Francis have been published in "Opuscula S. P. Francisci Assisiensis" (Quaracchi, 1904); Böhmer, "Analekten zur Geschichte des Franciscus von Assisi" (Tübingen, 1904); U. d'Alençon, "Les Opuscules de S. François d' Assise" (Paris, 1905); Robinson, "The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi" (Philadelphia, 1906).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Bl. Francis of Fabriano

Priest of the Order of Friars Minor; b. 2 Sept., 1251; d. 22 April, 1322. His birth and childhood were remarkable for evident signs of future sanctity. He was also gifted with rare talents. Having successfully completed the study of humanities and of philosophy, he asked for admission at a neighboring Franciscan convent, in 1267. Under the guidance of able masters he made rapid porgress in religious perfection. Subsequently he applied himself to the study of theology, and devoted the remainder of his life to missionary labours in his native town and vicinity. As missionary Blessed Francis has become a shining example to the preachers of the Seraphic Order. He was a man of prayer and untiring study. In accordance with the words of the rule, "Ut sint examinate et casta eorum eloquia", he was deeply convinced that the friars must announce to the faithful only well-grounded and authentic doctrine, in unambiguous and carefully sifted language. Ever mindful of this principle, Francis logically took a further step which has signalized him as a far-sighted and truly progressive member of his order. As a consequence of the extensive proportions theological studies had assumed since the time of St. Francis, the humble collections of biblical and patristic works, which were found in the early Franciscan communities, no longer met the demands of the student and preacher. Hence, Francis, heedless of any disapproving voice, promptly purchased with his father's money a handsome library, the first on an extended scale established in the order. He loved to call it the "best workshop in the convent", and its catalogue, mentioned by Wadding, contains numerous works of the Fathers, the masters of theology, biblical commentators, philosophers, mathematicians, and preachers, which shows that Francis was indeed, in this respect, quite abreast of his time. No wonder, then that we find all his biographers in accord with Mark of Lisbon, who styles him a "most learned man and renowned preacher". Of the writings of Francis Venimbeni little has been published. His "Chronica Marchiæ et Fabriani", his "De veritate et excellentiâ Indulgentiæ S. Mariæ de Portiuncula", and the "Opusculum de serie et gestis Ministrorum Generalium", all three probably forming one extensive chronicle, have unfortunately disappeared, save a few precious fragments bearing on the most salient questions of early Franciscan history. Besides several treatises of a philosophical, ascetical, and didactic character, he wrote an "Ars Prædicantium", numerous "Sermons", and a beautiful elegy on the death of St. Bonaventure. Despite his literary pursuits and manifold missionary occupations Francis found ample time for ascetical practices and works of an all-embracing charity. God testified to the sanctity of His servant by many signs and miracles. His cult was approved by Pius VI in 1775.

The biography of Blessed Francis was written by his nephew, DOMINIC FESSI, and other contemporary wrriters. WADDING has collected and utilized their accounts for his Annals. PULIGNANI, Miscell. Francesc., X, 69 sq. enumerates the more recent biographers of F., and recommends especially two books by LUIGI TASSO: Discorso laudatorio del B. Francesco Venimbeni da Fabriano (Fabriano, 1881), and Vita del B. Francesco da Fabriano dell' ordine dei Minori (Fabriano, 1893). The latter contains a brief treatise by Francis, and his elegy on St. Bonaventure. Extracts from his Chronicle have been edited by PULIGNANI, op. cit., 69-72. Cf. DE CLARY, L Aureole Seraph., tr. Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three Orders of St. Francis (Taunton, 1882) II, 171-175; WADDING, Annales (Rome, 1731), III, 244, 245, IV, 276-278, 400, VI, 377-385; IDEM, Scriptores (Rome, 1659), 115; SBARALEA, Supplementum (Rome, 1806), 252; Acta SS. (Venice, 1734-), April, III, 88-94.

THOMAS PLASSMANN

St. Francis of Paula

Founder of the Order of Minims; b. in 1416, at Paula, in Calabria, Italy; d. 2 April, 1507, at Plessis, France. His parents were remarkable for the holiness of their lives. Remaining childless for some years after their marriage they had recourse to prayer, especially commending themselves to the intercession of St. Francis of Assisi. Three children were eventually born to them, eldest of whom was Francis. When still in the cradle he suffered from a swelling which endangered the sight of one of his eyes. His parents again had recourse to Francis of Assisi, and made a vow that their son should pass an entire year in the "little habit" of St Francis in one of the convents of his order, a not uncommon practice in the Middle Ages. The child was immediately cured. From his early years Francis showed signs of extraordinary sanctity, and at the age of thirteen, being admonished by a vision of a Franciscan friar, he entered a convent of the Franciscan Order in order to fulfil the vow made by his parents. Here he gave great edification by his love of prayer and mortification, his profound humility, and his prompt obedience. At the completion of the year he went with his parents on a pilgrimage to Assisi, Rome, and other places of devotion. Returning to Paula he selected a retired spot on his father's estate, and there lived in solitude; but later on he found a more retired dwelling in a cave on the sea coast. Here he remained alone for about six years giving himself to prayer and mortification.

In 1435 two companions joined him in his retreat, and to accommodate them Francis caused three cells and a chapel to be built: in this way the new order was begun. The number of his disciples gradually increased, and about 1454, with the permission of Pyrrhus, Archbishop of cosenza, Francis built a large monastery and church. The building of this monastery was the occasion of a great outburst of enthusiasm and devotion on the part of the people towards Francis: even the nobles carried stones and joined in the work. Their devotion was increased by the many miracles which the saint wrought in answer to their prayers. The rule of life adopted by Francis and his religious was one of extraordinary severity. They observed perpetual abstinence and lived in great poverty, but the distinguishing mark of the order was humility. They were to seek to live unknown and hidden from the world. To express this character which he would have his disciples cultivate, Francis eventually obtained from the Holy See that they should be styled Minims, the least of all religious. In 1474 Sixtus IV gave him permission to write a rule for his community, and to assume the title of Hermits of St. Francis: this rule was formally approved by Alexander VI, who, however, changed their title into that of Minims. After the approbation of the order, Francis founded several new monasteries in Calabria and Sicily. He also established convents of nuns, and a third order for people living in the world, after the example of St. Francis of Assisi.

He had an extraordinary gift of prophecy: thus he foretold the capture of Otranto by the Turks in 1480, and its subsequent recovery by the King of Naples. Also he was gifted with discernment of consciences. He was no respecter of persons of whatever rank or position. He rebuked the King of Naples for his ill-doing and in consequence suffered much persecution. When Louis XI was in his last illness he sent an embassy to Calabria to beg the saint to visit him. Francis refused to come nor could he be prevailed upon until the pope ordered him to go. He then went to the king at Plessis-les-Tours and was with him at his death. Charles VIII, Louis's successor, much admired the saint and during his reign kept him near the court and frequently consulted him. This king built a monastery for Minims at Plessis and another at Rome on the Pincian Hill. The regard in which Charles VIII held the saint was shared by Louis XII, who succeeded to the throne in 1498. Francis was now anxious to return to Italy, but the king would not permit him, not wishing to lose his counsels and direction. The last three mouths of his life he spent in entire solitude, preparing for death. On Maundy Thursday he gathered his community around him and exhorted them especially to have mutual charity amongst themselves and to maintain the rigour of their life and in particular perpetual abstinence. The next day, Good Friday, he again called them together and gave them his last instructions and appointed a vicar-general. He then received the last sacraments and asked to have the Passion according to St. John read out to him, and whilst this was being read, his soul passed away. Leo X canonized him in 1019. In 1562 the Huguenots broke open his tomb and found his body incorrupt. They dragged it forth and burnt it, but some of the bones were preserved by the Catholics and enshrined in various churches of his order. The Order of Minims does not seem at any time to have been very extensive, but they had houses in many countries. The definitive rule was approved in 1506 by Julius II, who also approved a rule for the nuns of the order. The feast of St. Francis of Paula is kept by the universal Church on 2 April, the day on which he died.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Francis of Vittoria

A Spanish theologian; b. about 1480, at Vittoria, province of Avila, in Old Castile; d. 12 August, 1546. While still young, he moved with his parents from their native city to Burgos, at that time the ordinary sojourn of the sovereigns of Castile. He received his early education in the schools of that place, and, on the completion of his academic studies, entered the Order of St. Dominic. While he devoted his energies to the study of the sacred sciences, the mastery of which made him an ornament to the Church, to his order, and to the Universities of Spain, he was assiduous in the practice of piety. After his religious profession he was sent to the convent of St. James in Paris then the chief house of studies of the order and affiliated with the University of Paris, where he made the best use of the advantages held out to him for the prosecution of his philosophical and theological studies. In 1516, he was appointed to teach in this convent, and it was here, in all probability that he had for his pupil Dominic de Soto. In 1522, he returned to Spain and taught theology in the Dominican College of St. Gregory at Valladolid till 1524, when he was appointed to the principal chair of theology in the University of Salamanca which he held till 1544. The influence which Francis exerted directly in the University of Salamanca and indirectly in the universities of Alcalá, Coimbra, Evora, Seville, Vailadolid, and others, forms an interesting chapter in the history of theology. More than any other then theologian of his time, he ministered to the actual intellectual needs of the Church. Scholasticism had lost its former prestige, and was passing through the most critical period in its history. The times had changed, and it required a master to adapt speculative thought to the new condition. The revival of theological activity in the Catholic universities of this period, consequent upon the doctrines of the reformers, and the development of theological speculation inspired Francis to inaugurate a movement for the restoration of scholastic philosophy, and to give to theological science a purer diction and an improved literary form. With foresight and ability he devoted all his energies to the undertaking, and his success is attested by the many excellent theological works that were produced in Spain during the sixteenth century. Among his disciples were Melchior Cano, Bartholomew Medina, Dominic de Soto, and Martin de Ledesma, by whose efforts and that of the great Carmelite teachers a new zest was given to the study of St. Thomas, and by whose aid Francis was able to extend his influence to the other universities of Spain. He is justly styled the father of the Salmantacensis School, and especially of the new Scholasticism. His style, simple and unrhetorical, is the more noteworthy for having attained its simplicity in the golden age of Humanism. He left a large number of valuable manuscripts, but his only published work is the "Relectiones XII Theologicae in duo libros distinctae" (Antwerp, 1604). The most important of his unpublished works is his "commentaria in universam summam S. Thomae".

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Blessed Francis Regis Clet

A Lazarist missionary in China; b. 1748, martyred, 18 Feb., 1820. His father was a merchant of Grenoble in France, his mother's name was Claudine Bourquy. He was the tenth of fifteen children. The family was deeply religious, several members of it having consecrated themselves to God. Francis attended the Jesuit college at Grenoble and afterwards entered the diocesan seminary which was in charge of the Oratorians. His extant letters in French and Latin show a cultivated mind. On 6 Mar., 1769, he entered the novitiate of the Congregation of the Mission or Lazarists, at Lyons. There he made his vows in 1771 and was ordained priest in 1773. The same year he went as professor of moral theology to the diocesian seminary at Annecy. His zeal and learning produced excellent fruits. In the sixteenth year of his stay at Annecy he was sent to Paris for the election of a superior general of the congregation. He did not return, for the new superior general appointed him director of the internal seminary, at the motherhouse in Paris. Scarcely a year had elapsed when the sacking of St. Lazare, on the eve of the taking of the Bastille, scattered his flock. Many of the young men returned to the dismantled house the next day and gathered around their director, but the fury of the revolution prevented their remaining.

It was at this period that his ambition to become missionary was manifested. His superior yielded to his desires, and he was sent to China in 1791. The first post assigned him was in Kiang-Si, one of the most destitute Christian settlements in China. He had great difficulty in acquiring the language, which he never fully mastered. The next year he was sent to Hou-Kouang where he laboured for 27 years. Death soon deprived him of his two brother-priests and for several years he ministered alone to a vast district. In spite of difficulties, he succeeded in keeping up the fervour of the Christians and bringing many pagans to fold. In July, 1812, his church and schoolhouse were destroyed, but he escaped. In 1818 the persecution broke out again with renewed fury. After several remarkable escapes from the seaching parties, he was bestrayed by a Chinese Christian, for the 1500 dollars set on his head, and was taken, 16 June, 1819. He had to undergo the greatest cruelty for five weeks, but not a word of complaint escaped him. Being transferred to another prison, he was treated more humanely and found there Father Chen, a Chinese Lazarist, from whom he could receive the sacraments. On 1 Jan., 1820, however, sentence of death was passed on him. The execution took place, 18 Feb., 1820. He was tied to a stake erected like a cross, and was strangled to death, the rope having been relaxed twice to give him a three-fold death agony. He was beautified by Pope Leo XIII, 27 May, 1900, and his feast day is on the 17 February. His remains rest in the chapel of the mother house of the Lazarists, in Paris. His holy life and death were the inspiration of Blessed John Gabriel Perboyre, also a Lazarist, who was martyred in China in 1840.

Lives by VAURIS (Paris, 1853); DEMINUID (2 vols., Paris, 1893); RONGEST (Paris, 1900); DE MONGESTY (Paris, 1906).

B. RANDOLPH

St. Francis Solanus

South American missionary of the Order of Friars Minor; b. at Montilla, in the Diocese of Cordova, Spain, 10 March, 1549; d. at Lima, Peru, 14 July, 1610. His parents, Matthew Sanchez Solanus and Anna Ximenes, were distinguished no less for their noble birth than for their virtue and piety. When Francis was twenty years old, he was received into the Franciscan Order at Montilla, and after his ordination, several years later, he was sent by his superiors to the convent of Arifazza as master of novices. In 1589 he sailed from Spain to the New World, and having landed at Panama, crossed the isthmus and embarked on a vessel that was to convey him to Peru. His missionary labours in South America extended over a period of twenty years, during which time he spared no fatigue, shrank from no sacrifice however great, and feared no danger that stood in the way of evangelizing the vast and savage regions of Tucuman and Paraguay. So successful, indeed, was his apostolate that he has been aptly styled the Thaumaturgus of the New World. Notwithstanding the number and difficulty of the dialects spoken by the Indians, he learned them all in a very short time, and it is said that he often addressed tribes of different tongues in one language and was understood by them all. Besides being engaged in active missionary work, he filled the office of custos of the convents of his order in Tucuman and Paraguay, and later was elected guardian of the Franciscan convent in Lima, Peru. In 1610, while preaching at Truxillo he foretold the calamities that were to befall that city, which was destroyed by an earthquake eight years later, most of the inhabitants perishing in the ruins. The death of St. Francis, which he himself had foretold, was the cause of general grief throughout Peru. In his funeral sermon at the burial of the saint, Father Sebastiani, S.J., said that "Divine Providence had chosen Father Francis Solanus to be the hope and edification of all Peru, the example and glory of Lima and the splendour of the Seraphic Order". St. Francis was beatified by Clement X, in 1675, and canonized by Benedict XIII, in 1726. His feast is kept throughout the Franciscan Order on the twenty-fourth of July.

"Life of St. Francis Solanus" (New York, 1888); LEO, "Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis" (Taunton, 1886), II 509-522; Acta SS., July, V, 847-901.

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

St. Francis Xavier

Born in the Castle of Xavier near Sanguesa, in Navarre, 7 April, 1506; died on the Island of Sancian near the coast of China, 2 December, 1552. In 1525, having completed a preliminary course of studies in his own country, Francis Xavier went to Paris, where he entered the collège de Sainte-Barbe. Here he met the Savoyard, Pierre Favre, and a warm personal friendship sprang up between them. It was at this same college that St. Ignatius Loyola, who was already planning the foundation of the Society of Jesus, resided for a time as a guest in 1529. He soon won the confidence of the two young men; first Favre and later Xavier offered themselves with him in the formation of the Society. Four others, Lainez, Salmerón, Rodríguez, and Bobadilla, having joined them, the seven made the famous vow of Montmartre, 15 Aug., 1534.

After completing his studies in Paris and filling the post of teacher there for some time, Xavier left the city with his companions 15 November, 1536, and turned his steps to Venice, where he displayed zeal and charity in attending the sick in the hospitals. On 24 June, 1537, he received Holy orders with St. Ignatius. The following year he went to Rome, and after doing apostolic work there for some months, during the spring of 1539 he took part in the conferences which St. Ignatius held with his companions to prepare for the definitive foundation of the Society of Jesus. The order was approved verbally 3 September, and before the written approbation was secured, which was not until a year later, Xavier was appointed, at the earnest solicitation of the John III, King of Portugal, to evangelize the people of the East Indies. He left Rome 16 March, 1540, and reached Lisbon about June. Here he remained nine months, giving many admirable examples of apostolic zeal.

On 7 April, 1541, he embarked in a sailing vessel for India, and after a tedious and dangerous voyage landed at Goa, 6 May, 1542. The first five months he spent in preaching and ministering to the sick in the hospitals. He would go through the streets ringing a little bell and inviting the children to hear the word of God. When he had gathered a number, he would take them to a certain church and would there explain the catechism to them. About October, 1542, he started for the pearl fisheries of the extreme southern coast of the peninsula, desirous of restoring Christanity which, although introduced years before, had almost disappeared on account of the lack of priests. He devoted almost three years to the work of preaching to the people of Western India, converting many, and reaching in his journeys even the Island of Ceylon. Many were the difficulties and hardships which Xavier had to encounter at this time, sometimes on account of the cruel persecutions which some of the petty kings of the country carried on against the neophytes, and again because the Portuguese soldiers, far from seconding the work of the saint, retarded it by their bad example and vicious habits.

In the spring of 1545 Xavier started for Malacca. He laboured there for the last months of that year, and although he reaped an abundant spiritual harvest, he was not able to root out certain abuses, and was conscious that many sinners had resisted his efforts to bring them back to God. About January, 1546, Xavier left Malacca and went to Molucca Islands, where the Portuguese had some settlements, and for a year and a half he preached the Gospel to the inhabitants of Amboyna, Ternate, Baranura, and other lesser islands which it has been difficult to identify. It is claimed by some that during this expedition he landed on the island of Mindanao, and for this reason St. Francis Xavier has been called the first Apostle of the Philippines. But although this statement is made by some writers of the seventeenth century, and in the Bull of canonization issued in 1623, it is said that he preached the Gospel in Mindanao, up to the present time it has not been proved absolutely that St. Francis Xavier ever landed in the Philippines.

By July, 1547, he was again in Malacca. Here he met a Japanese called Anger (Han-Sir), from whom he obtained much information about Japan. His zeal was at once aroused by the idea of introducing Christanity into Japan, but for the time being the affairs of the Society demanded his presence at goa, whither he went, taking Anger with him. During the six years that Xavier had been working among the infidels, other Jesuit missionaries had arrived at Goa, sent from Europe by St. Ignatius; moreover some who had been born in the country had been received into the Society. In 1548 Xavier sent these missionaries to the principal centres of India, where he had established missions, so that the work might be preserved and continued. He also established a novitiate and house of studies, and having received into the Society Father Cosme de Torres, a spanish priest whom he had met in the Maluccas, he started with him and Brother Juan Fernandez for Japan towards the end of June, 1549. The Japanese Anger, who had been baptized at Goa and given the name of Pablo de Santa Fe, accompanied them.

They landed at the city of Kagoshima in Japan, 15 Aug., 1549. The entire first year was devoted to learning the Japanese language and translating into Japanese, with the help of Pablo de Santa Fe, the principal articles of faith and short treatises which were to be employed in preaching and catechizing. When he was able to express himself, Xavier began preaching and made some converts, but these aroused the ill will of the bonzes, who had him banished from the city. Leaving Kagoshima about August, 1550, he penetrated to the centre of Japan, and preached the Gospel in some of the cities of southern Japan. Towards the end of that year he reached Meaco, then the principal city of Japan, but he was unable to make any headway here because of the dissensions the rending the country. He retraced his steps to the centre of Japan, and during 1551 preached in some important cities, forming the nucleus of several Christian communities, which in time increased with extraordinary rapidity.

After working about two years and a half in Japan he left this mission in charge of Father Cosme de Torres and Brother Juan Fernandez, and returned to Goa, arriving there at the beginning of 1552. Here domestic troubles awaited him. Certain disagreements between the superior who had been left in charge of the missions, and the rector of the college, had to be adjusted. This, however, being arranged, Xavier turned his thoughts to China, and began to plan an expedition there. During his stay in Japan he had heard much of the Celestial Empire, and though he probably had not formed a proper estimate of his extent and greatness, he nevertheless understood how wide a field it afforded for the spread of the light of the Gospel. With the help of friends he arranged a commission or embassy the Sovereign of China, obtained from the Viceroy of India the appointment of ambassador, and in April, 1552, he left Goa. At Malacca the party encountered difficulties because the influential Portuguese disapproved of the expedition, but Xavier knew how to overcome this opposition, and in the autumn he arrived in a Portuguese vessel at the small island of Sancian near the coast of China. While planning the best means for reaching the mainland, he was taken ill, and as the movement of the vessel seemed to aggravate his condition, he was removed to the land, where a rude hut had been built to shelter him. In these wretched surroundings he breathed his last.

It is truly a matter of wonder that one man in the short space of ten years (6 May, 1542 - 2 December, 1552) could have visited so many countries, traversed so many seas, preached the Gospel to so many nations, and converted so many infidels. The incomparable apostolic zeal which animated him, and the stupendous miracles which God wrought through him, explain this marvel, which has no equal elsewhere. The list of the principal miracles may be found in the Bull of canonization. St. Francis Xavier is considered the greatest missionary since the time of the Apostles, and the zeal he displayed, the wonderful miracles he performed, and the great number of souls he brought to the light of true Faith, entitle him to this distinction. He was canonized with St. Ignatius in 1622, although on account of the death of Gregory XV, the Bull of canonization was not published until the following year.

The body of the saint is still enshrined at Goa in the church which formerly belonged to the Society. In 1614 by order of Claudius Acquaviva, General of the Society of Jesus, the right arm was severed at the elbow and conveyed to Rome, where the present altar was erected to receive it in the church of the Gesu.

ANTONIO ASTRAIN

Kasper Franck

A theologian and controversialist; b. at Ortrand, Saxony, 2 Nov., 1543; d. at Ingolstadt, 12 March, 1584. His parents were Lutherans and his early religious instruction filled him with enthusiasm for the new doctrine. His earnest desire for the conversion of his country led him to choose the ministry as his field of labour, and such was his zeal and success as a preacher that Count Ladislaus of Haag, who had but recently introduced the reformed faith into his province, invited him to his court. The premature death, however, of Ladislaus prevented Franck from carrying out the proposed plans of reform. Duke Albert, the successor of Ladislaus, resolved to restore the Catholic religion, and to that end called to his assistance the famous convert and preacher, Martin Eisengrein. His intercourse with Eisengrein soon led Franck to see the errors of the new creed. In 1506, he matriculated at the University of Ingolstadt, devoted himself to the study of the Fathers and the early Christian Church, and on 25 Jan., 1568, made a formal profession of the Catholic Faith. Albert, recognizing him as a man of great usefulness in reclaiming to the Faith many strayed souls, obtained from Pius V a dispensation to have him ordained a priest. Before beginning his missionary labours, he published a work setting forth the reasons and justification of his return to the ancient faith; "Klare vnd Grundtliche vrsachen Warumb M. Caspar Franck Von der Sect, zu der allgemainen Christlichen vnd Römischen Kirchen getreten" (Ingolstadt, 1568); the same in Latin, "Dilucida exposito justissimarum causarum", etc. His apostolic labours in Haag and Kraiburg were crowned with success. In 1572, he was again in the University of Ingolstadt, pursuing his theological studies and the following year he was appointed its rector, which office he again held later for several consecutive terms. On the occasion of the General Jubilee in 1575, he set out for Rome, won at Siena the doctorate in theology and shortly afterwards Gregory XIII conferred on him the title of Prothonotary Apostolic and Comes Lateranensis. His vast erudition, zeal, and power of penetration place him on the long list of learned men who directed the destiny of the University of Ingolstadt during the sixteenth century. His polemical writings manifest earnest and painstaking labour and an intimate familiarity with patristic literature. Among his more important works may be mentioned: "Brevis et Pia Institutio de puro verbo Dei et clara S. Evangelii luce" (Ingolstadt, 1571); "Tractatus de ordinaria, legitima et apostolica vocatione sacerdotem et concionatorum", etc. (Inglolstat, 1571); "Casperis Franci de externo, visibili et hiearchico, Ecclesiae Catholicae sacerdotio", (Cologne, 1575); "Catalogus haereticorum" (Inglolstadt, 1576); "Explicatio totius historiae Passionis et Mortis Domini", etc. (Inglolstat, 1572); "Fundamentum Catholicae Fidei contra Schmidelin" (Inglolstadt, 1578).

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Giovanni Battista Franco

(Frequently known as IL SEMOLIE)

Italian historical painter and etcher, b. at Udine in 1510; d. at Venice in 1580. He studied in Rome, giving special attention to the works of Michelangelo, and taking great interest in designing allegorical decorations on a large scale. He worked with Vasari in carrying out some decorative work in a palace for Ottaviano de' Medici, but is better known for his portraits of the Medici family, which were, however, to a great extent copies from the works of other men. His designs for majolica were of importance and were executed for the Duke of Urbino; but perhaps he is better remembered for his etchings, of which there are over a hundred, than for any other works. He is said to have been instructed in the art of etching by Marc' Antonio, and his plates are marked B.F.V.F. (Battista Franco Venetus Fecit). They are not particularly attractive, as their execution is somewhat mechanical, but there is a certain light and easy spirit about them by which they can be recognized. About half the number are original works, the others being derived from paintings by Raphael, Titian, and others.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Michael Sigismund Frank

Catholic artist and rediscoverer of the lost art of glass-painting; b. 1 June, 1770, at Nuremberg; d. at Munich, 16 January, 1847. His father was a dealer in provisions, living in comfortable circumstances, who destined his boy to become his successor in business. But these plans were thwarted by Sigismund's passionate fondness for art. The mother, without her hustand's knowledge, had him instructed in drawing in the local academy, an institution of moderate merit. Young Frank's progress was so marked as to astonish his friends.

Having lost his father in early youth, Frank was apprenticed to his godfather Neubert, who carried on at Nuremberg the business of lacquering and decorating wooden boxes and caskets. His progress in this work was rapid, but he stayed less than a year with Neubert. After returning to the house of his mother, who had married a second time, he once more enthusiastically devoted himself to the study of drawing, meantime painting boxes for other manufacturers at Nuremberg and earning enough to pay his expenses. On completing his twenty- first year his parents induced him against his inclination to wed Marie H. Blechkoll, the daughter of an hotel-keeper who brought him as her dowry the inn Zur Himmelsleiter which exists to this day. But Frank was not born to be an innkeeper. He continued his art studies while his wife managed the hotel. However, he now turned his attention to painting porcelain, to which art one of his guests, the skilful porcelain-painter Trost, had introduced him. His success was immediate, and when, after a married life of five years, his wife died, he sold the hotel and established a porcelain factory. The undertaking, which brought him a good income, led him to travel in Austria, Hungary, and Turkey; at Vienna he made the acquaintance of several prominent artists, under whose instruction he perfected himself as a colourist.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, when Western Germany repeatedly became the scene of French invasions, Frank's business interests suffered severely. It was then that his attention was turned in a wholly new direction. At the shop of a business friend named Wirth he met an Englishman to whom Wirth sold some fragments of ancient coloured glass for what seemed to Frank a large sum. On inquiry he found that the high price paid was due to the fact that the art of painting in glass which had been coloured while molten–an art which had produced so many of the magnificent church and palace windows during the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance–had been entirely lost during the eighteenth century. Frank determined to recover the lost secret of this art. Unaided and untaught, he toiled for several years to accomplish his purpose; his savings fast disappeared, and his success seemed more and more doubtful. His friends expressed fears that he would become a financial and mental wreck, and urged him to give up his fruitless efforts. But Frank persevered, and in 1804 there came a turn in his fortunes. He had found at last the method of producing coloured glass which he had so long sought. His first commission was to paint the coat of arms of the Rhenish Count Schenk, for his chapel at Greifenstein in Franconia. When this glass-painting was seen by the travelling agent of a London art house named Rauh, a Nuremberger like Frank himself, he recognized at once that Frank's work was practically the same as the ancient glass-painting the secret of which had been lost. He hastened to Nuremberg, saw Frank, and made business arrangements with him. Frank now made several hundred pieces for the Englsih market, some of which made their way to Philadelphia and Baltimore. But the diappearance of Rauh in 1807 put an end to Frank's prosperity and might have had serious consequences had not King Maximilian I of Bavaria become the artist's patron (1808). So favourable was the impression made on the king by Frank's execution of the royal Bavarian coat of arms that the monarch not only paid him generously, but turned over to him for factory purposes the building called the Zwinger, in Nuremberg. Henceforth Frank produced many works for King Maximilian, such as the "Circumcision", after Heinrich Goltzius; the "Nativity", after Bolzwerth; the "Passion", six parts after Lucas van Leyden; the Mosque of Cordova; "St. Barbara", after Holbein; the "Judgment of Solomon", after Raphael; the "Magi", after Rubens. For King Louis I, also, Frank executed many commissions, especially the glass decorations of the cathedral of Ratisbon.

In 1818 Maximilian appointed Frank painter in glass at the royal porcelain factory in Munich, with a salary of 800 florins annually. When, in 1827, Maximilian's successor established the royal institute for glass-painting, Frank was entrusted with all the arrangements and with the technical management, particularly with the preparation of the colours to be used and the manufacture of the coloured glass plates. He was also charged with instructing assistants in the secrets of his craft. Here he worked until 1840 when he retired with an annual pension of 1200 florins.

He was the father of many children, of whom the most prominent is the well-known historical painter Julius Frank. Among his friends were the great physicist Fraunhofer and the Viennese glass-painter Molin, who bore enthusiastic testimony to the excellence of Frank's colouring, especially his reds and his flesh colour.

      Mitteilungen des Verbandes deutscher Glasmalerei (Munich, 1907); da Schaden in his Skizzen (Munich, 1829).

Charles G. Herbermann

Graf von Frankenberg

JOHANN HEINRICH, GRAF VON FRANKENBERG.

Archbishop of Mechlin (Malines), Primate of Belgium, and cardinal; b. 18 September, 1726, at Gross-Glogau, Silesia; d. at Breda, 11 June, 1804. He belonged to an ancient family devotedly attached to the House of Hapsburg, and which remained so after the conquest of Silesia by Frederick II (1740). Although he was the sole male heir of his family and assured of the protection of the Empress Maria Theresa, he decided, when quite young, to become a priest. He attended the Jesuit college of his native city, went later to the University of Breslau, and thence to the German College at Rome, where he obtained the degrees of Doctor of Theology, and of Canon Law, and was ordained priest 10 August, 1749. On his return to Austria, he was made coadjutor to the Bishop of Görz in Carniola (1750-54), dean of the collegiate church of All Saints at Prague (1754), later of that of Sts. Cosmas and Damian at Alt-Bunzlau in Bohemia (1756), an finally Archbishop of Mechlin and primate of the Austrian Low Countries on 27 May, 1759. In this exalted post, as in those which he had previously occupied, his life was an example of every private and public virtue. It was not long before he was called on to defend the dignity and independence of his office against the Austrian Government, which, even under Maria Theresa, was foreshadowing the petty tyranny of Joseph II. Despite his great devotion to Maria Theresa, he more than once resisted the improper exactions of her ministers, who wished him to grant Lenten dispensations according to their pleasure, and interfered in the most annoying manner in matters that pertained exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He enjoyed, however, the personal favour of Maria Theresa, who sought to have him made Archbishop of Vienna, and in 1778 exerted herself to the uttermost to obtain for him the cardinal's hat. The situation changed with the accession of Joseph II, a disciple of the "philosophers" and imbued with the principles of an "enlightened despotism". This emperor began that politico-ecclesiastical system, known as Josephinism, which meant substantially the absolute supremacy of the State. Each imperial encroachment on the inalienable rights of the Church was opposed by Frankenberg with commendable fortitude, and yet in a gentle manner and with such respect for the civil authority that the cardinal brought upon himself the bitter reproaches of such unflinching zealots as the ex-Jesuits, Feller and Dedoyar. His protests, however, were met by the Government in an ill-humoured and disdainful way. It affected, indeed, to pay no attention to them. The most serious of the conflicts was that which broke out with regard to the General Seminary, founded at Louvain in 1786 by the emperor, and to which he ordered the bishops to send their students, closing at the same time their diocesan seminaries. The heretical teaching of the professors in this new institution, and the avowed purpose of using it as an instrument of ecclesiastical reform and a weapon against "ultramontanism", soon provoked among the students an agitation that ended in a general dispersion. The irritated emperor, forthwith, summoned the cardinal to Vienna to intimidate him by means, as he wrote to Kaunitz, "of those vigorous and unanswerable arguments of which you know so well how to make use". Ill, bereft of his advisers, threatened with indefinite detention at a great distance from his diocese; reared, moreover, in those principles of respect for the sovereign power, which to us seem so exaggerated, the cardinal consented to sign a rather equivocal declaration, in which he stated that he was convinced of his obligation to conform to the imperial decrees "relative to the General Seminary", but reserved to himself the right to appeal to the emperor in cases where the eternal salvation of souls appeared to him to be imperilled.

On his return to Belgium, Frankenberg regained his former energy. He felt himself upheld by the ardent Catholic spirit of the nation, and announced to the Government that his conscience would not permit of him to concur in the establishment of the General Seminary. Despite all threats, he thenceforth remained firm. The emperor called on him to express on his opinion on the doctrines then taught at the General Seminary, whereupon the cardinal condemned that teaching in his "Declaration " -- a document which created a profound impression throughout Belgium. The country was already disturbed by insurrectionary movements, and the Government was obliged to close the General Seminary. It was too late, however, to repress the rebellious agitation. The Government sought, therefore, to make the cardinal responsible for it, and wished to place him under arrest. From his place of refuge, the cardinal protested against the accusation: "I take heaven and earth to witness", said he, "that I have had no share or influence whatever in this insurrection. The entire Netherlands will bear witness to this fact and do me justice in this respect." The Government, finding it to necessary to abandon the criminal process it had begun against the cardinal, exhibited a conciliatory temper. In the meantime, however, the revolution broke out. The new administration found him friendly, and he was henceforth officially a member of the States-General. At the same time he held aloof from purely political discussions and confined himself to recommending political union. He received with submission and respect the re-establishment of the Austrian Government, to which he had always been attached. On the arrival of the French he had to undergo new trials. He refused the pension which the Government wished to grant him in compensation for the suppression of his revenue, declared his opposition to the oath exacted of the clergy, and was finally brutally expelled from Belgium (1797). He retired to Emmerich in Prussia, where, aged, sick, and poor, he lived on the charity of his flock, and continued to warn them against those ecclesiastics who had taken the oath. His apostolic courage and his constancy in these trials elicited solemn eulogies from both Pius VI and Pius VII. In deference to the pope's request and to render possible the execution of the concordat, he resigned, 20 November, 1801, the Archbishopric of Mechlin. Driven from Emmerich by the King of Prussia at the instance of the French Government, which affected to regard him as a conspirator, he retired to Borken in the territory of Münster (1801), and, after the suppression of this principality, to Breda, where he died. His courage, self-abnegation, and patience in the face of persecution and adversity make him one of the noblest figures of the Catholic episcopate during the eighteenth century.

CLAESSENS, Histoire des Archevêques de Malines (Louvain, 1881); VERHAEGEN, Le Cardinal de Frankenberg, archevêque de Malines (Bruges, Lille, 1890).

GODEFROID KURTH

Council of Frankfort

Convened in the summer of 794, by the grace of God, authority of the pope, and command of Charlemagne (can. 1), and attended by the bishops of the Frankish kingdom, Italy, and the province of Aquitania, and even by ecclesiastics from England. The council was summoned primarily for the condemnation of Adoptionism (q.v.). According to the testimony of contemporaries two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen, representing Pope Adrian I. After an allocution by Charlemagne, the bishops drew up two memorials against the Adoptionists, one containing arguments from patristic writings; the other arguments from Scripture. The first was the Libellus sacrosyllabus, written by Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, in the name of the Italian bishops; the second was the Epistola Synodica, addressed to the bishops of Spain by those of Germany, Gaul, and Aquitania. In the first of its fifty-six canons the council condemned Adoptionism, and in the second repudiated the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which, according to the faulty Latin translation of its Acts (see CAROLINE BOOKS), seemed to decree that the same kind of worship should be paid to images as to the Blessed Trinity, though the Greek text clearly distinguishes between latreia and proskynesis. The remaining fifty-four canons dealt with metropolitan jurisdiction, monastic discipline, superstition, etc.

LEO A. KELLY

Frankfort-on-the-Main

Frankfort-on-the-Main, formerly the scene of the election and coronation of the German emperors, is situated in the administrative district of Wiesbaden, in the Prussian province of Hesse-Nassau; it lies on both sides of the Main, twenty-four miles above its confluence with the Rhine at Mainz. On 1 December, 1905, the city had a population of 334, 978, of whom 105,814 were Catholics, and 23,476 Jews.

Frankfort is partly under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Diocese of Limburg, and partly under that of Fulda. For the care of souls, the city is divided into six parishes; of these the city-parish proper is subdivided into six independent ecclesiastical districts, and one curacy; the Catholic soldiers have a military church of their own. Of the twenty-five Catholic churches and chapels in Frankfort, the most important is the cathedral of St. Bartholomew, in which the elections and coronations of the German emperors were held; it stands on the site formerly occupied by the church of the Saviour (Salv*atorkirche), which was built by Louis the German (850-75), and rebuilt in 1239, in Gothic style, and the name changed to St. Bartholomew. Between 1315 and 1338 the choir was remodelled, and the transept in 1346; the famous tower (Pfarrturm) was added between 1415 and 1512. After the conflagration of 1867, the whole church was restored by Denzinger, the architect of the Ratisbon cathedral (1869-80), and the tower completed. (See "Der Kaiserdom zu Frankfurt a. M.", Frankfort, 1907.) Noteworthy also are the church of St. Leonard, a Gothic hall church (i. e. with aisles, but without clerestories), with five naves, erected between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century; the church of the Teutonic Knights (Deutschordenskirche), dedicated in 1309, rebuilt 1748-50, and restored 1883; and the Gothic church of Our Lady (Liebfrauenkirche), built 1325-1509. The care of souls is in charge of 31 secular priests. The religious orders and congregations represented in the city are: Capuchins (5 fathers and 3 brothers), Brothers of Mercy, Ursulines, Handmaids of Christ, and Sisters of the Poor of St. Francis from the mother-house at Aachen. The Catholic schools include 1 high school for boys, 2 high schools for girls, 1 institute for teachers, 8 elementary schools, 3 homes for children, 5 knitting- and sewing-schools. Of the 10 Catholic benevolent institutions and foundations, mention may be made of the almshouse (founded 1593), the Catholic home for girls, the working-women's home, and the children's home; among the hospitals under Catholic direction are that of the Brothers of Mercy, the hospice of the Brothers of Mercy, and the hospital of St. Elizabeth, under the Sisters of Mercy. The most important of the numerous Catholic associations (about 70) are: the Boniface Association, the Catholic Charity Association, the Elizabeth Society, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Catholic Journeymen's Union, the Merchants' Union, the Workmen's Union, the People's Union of Catholic Germany (Volksverein), the Congregation of Mary for Girls, etc. (See "Handbuch für die Katholiken von Frankfurt a. M.", Frankfort, 1903.)

Recent excavations have confirmed the belief that the present cathedral stands on the site of a Roman fort, built during the reign of Domitian by the Fourteenth Legion, and that a Roman settlement grew up about it. During the reign of Hadrian the fortress was abandoned, but the settlement continued to grow, and towards the end of the third century was seized by the Germans, first by the Alamanni, and later by the Franks. The earliest mention of this colony occurs in Einhard's annals for 793, where it is called Villa Franconofurt. In 794 an important imperial and ecclesiastical council was convened here in the royal palace. Of the German kings, Louis the Pious (814-40) and more especially Louis the German often used Frankfort a the royal residence; in the year of the latter's death, it is designated as principalis sedes orientalis regni. Louis the German built the church of the Saviour, later the cathedral, and founded the chapter of St. Bartholomew, consisting of one abbot and twelve priests. During the tenth century Frankfort declined in importance; in the year 1007 it was a public village of the empire without fortifications, a villa dominica or indominicata, which, however, was inhabited by freemen, as well as by serfs. During the twelfth century it rose to the rank of a city; between 1127 and 1142 the first city wall was built; by 1150 Frankfort had a tribunal of its own; in 1172 it was made a municipality (municipium); and in 1219 was removed from the jurisdiction of the king. Trade and industry received a powerful impetus; the Frankfort fair became one of the most important of Germany; the city gradually acquired control of the territory round about, and played an important role in the political struggles, particularly as a member of the Confederation of the Rhine. Louis the Bavarian (1314-47), whom Frankfort supported in his conflicts with the Holy See, notwithstanding a papal interdict, granted the city important prerogatives. The Golden Bull of Charles IV (1346-78) constituted Frankfort the legal electoral city of the German emperors; the city had already been the scene of the election of ten monarchs, between 1147 and 1300. After 1356 thirty-seven German emperors were elected at Frankfort, where, after Maximilian II, the coronation ceremony also took place, instead of at Aachen. A celebrated description of this ceremony is to be found in Goethe's "Warheit und Dichtung". The unfortunate difficulties between Frankfort and the electoral princes of the Palatinate and the nobles of the vicinity, in 1389, reduced the city to great straits, but could not shatter its power. Internal dissensions, like the insurrection of the guilds (1358-66) and the uprisings between 1389 and 1408, were finally brought to an end by the victory of the ruling families.

The Reformation found speedy acceptance among the majority of the city council and the middle classes, chiefly owing to the strained relations which the unjust distribution of taxes had brought about between the clergy and the people. In 1525 the doctrines of Luther were preached in Frankfort for the first time; in 1533, by command of the council, Catholic services were entirely suspended for some time; finally, after 1548, of the three Catholic chapters only that of St. Bartholomew, with the cathedral, remained in possession of the Catholics. On the defeat of the Smalkaldic League (1546), which Frankfort had joined in 1536, the city was forced to surrender to an imperial army and pay 80,000 gold gulden. During the revolt of Maurice of Saxony (1552) against Charles V, Frankfort supported the emperor and withstood a siege by his enemies. During the succeeding decades the city gained in prosperity what it lost in political prestige. A serious danger, however, menaced it in the revolt of the middle classes against the misrule of the patricians (1612-16), headed by the pastry-cook and gingerbread-baker, Vincenz Fettmilch. This shook the city government to its very foundations, and only ended with the decapitation of seven of the leaders, and the victory of the ruling families who retained their supremacy until the dissolution of the German Empire. During the Thirty Years War the citizens were decimated by famine and plague, particularly in 1635, and the city suffered severely from Louis XIV's wars of conquest. Frankfort was invested by the French (1759-62) during the Seven Years War, and likewise during the Revolutionary period (1792 and 1795). By the Imperial Delegates Enactment (1803) Frankfort was declared a free neutral city of the empire, and at the same time all monasteries, with the exception of the property of the Teutonic Knights, were secularized. After the dissolution of the German Empire, the city was granted to Karl Dalberg, previously Elector of Mainz, and in 1810 was made the capital of the Grand Duchy of Frankfort. Under Dalberg's mild rule, Christians of all denominations were granted equal recognition, and the year 1811 was marked by the emancipation of the Jews. The Vienna Congress made Frankfort a free imperial city of the new German Confederation and the seat of the Federal Diet, which meant for the city great political prestige and brilliant possibilities from a social point of view. Beginning in 1818 various conferences were held at Frankfort to make some arrangements with the Holy See for the ecclesiastical reorganization of the states represented; these were Baden, W¨rtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Nassau, Frankfort, Hohenzollern-Heckingen, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and others. Negotiations covering several years finally resulted in the erection of the province of the Upper Rhine (Oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz). The Frankfort Riot of 1833 presented some serious aspects for the city; the proceedings of the Federal Diet against the press and the whole system of unions and associations gave rise to a revolutionary movement, which the Diet undertook to suppress. After the attempted insurrection had been easily put down, the city had to maintain, at its own expense, a Prusso-Austrian garrison from 1833 to 1842. In 1848-49 Frankfort was the seat of the Vorparlament (a provisional assembly preparatory to the National Assembly) and the German National Assembly, and in 1863 of the German Fürstentag (Diet of Princes). Frankfort having voted in the Federal Diet against Prussia (14 June, 1866), on 16 July the city was invested by the Prussians and condemned to pay a heavy fine, and on 8 October was annexed to the Prussian Monarchy. At Frankfort the peace between France and Germany was signed, 10 May, 1871. Under Prussian rule the city has attained a high commercial and industrial importance.

RITTER, Evangelisches Denkmal der Stadt Frankfurt am Mayn (Frankfort, 1726); KIRCHNER, Gesch. der Stadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1807-10); VON FICHARD, Entstehung der Reichsstadt Frankfurt (Frankfort, 1819); KRIEGK, Frankfurter B*rgerzwiste und Zust*nde im M. A. (Frankfort, 1862); IDEM, Gesch. von Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1871); FANSSEN, Frankfurts Reichscorrespondent, 1376-1519, part III (Freiburg, 1863-73); Frankfurt und seine Bauten herausgegeben vom Architekten- und Ingenieurverein (Frankfort, 1886); B*CHER, Die Bev*lkerung von Frankfurt a. M. im 14. und 15. Jahrh. (Tübingen, 1886); WEBER AND DIEFENBACH, Zur Reformationsgesch. der Reichsstadt Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1895); HORNE, Geschichte von Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1902); BOEHMER-LAU, Codex diplomaticus M*nofrancofurtanus (2 vols., 1901, 1905); Neues Archiv für Frankfurts Gesch. und Kunst (Frankfort); Mitteilungen des Vereins für Gesch. und Altertumskunde in Frankfurt a. M. (Frankfort, 1860*).

JOSEPH LINS

The Franks

The Franks were a confederation formed in Western Germany of a certain number of ancient barbarian tribes who occupied the right shore of the Rhine from Mainz to the sea. Their name is first mentioned by Roman historians in connection with a battle fought against this people about the year 241. In the third century some of them crossed the Rhine and settled in Belgic Gaul on the banks of the Meuse and the Scheldt, and the Romans had endeavoured to expel them from the territory. Constantius Chlorus and his descendants continued the struggle, and, although Julian the Apostate inflicted a serious defeat on them in 359, he did not succeed in exterminating them, and eventually Rome was satisfied to make them her more or less faithful allies. After their overthrow by Julian the Apostate, the Franks of Belgium, becoming peaceful settlers, appear to have given the empire no further trouble, satisfied with having found shelter and sustenance on Roman soil. They even espoused Rome's cause during the great invasion of 406, but were overpowered by the ruthless hordes who devastated Belgium and overran Gaul and a part of Italy and Spain. Thenceforth the Belgian provinces ceased to be under the control of Rome and passed under the rule of the Franks.

When they first attracted attention in history the Franks were established in the northern part of Belgic Gaul, in the districts where their Germanic dialect is still spoken. Gregory of Tours tells us that their chief town was Dispargum, which is perhaps Tongres and that they were under a family of kings distinguished by their long hair, which they allowed to flow over their shoulders, while the other Frankish warriors had the back of the head shaved. This family was known as the Merovingians, from the name of one of its members, to whom national tradition had ascribed a sea-god as ancestor. Clodion, the first king of this dynasty known to history, began his series of conquests in Northern Gaul about the year 430. He penetrated as far as Artois, but was driven back by Aetius, who seems to have succeeded in keeping him on friendly terms with Rome. In fact, it seems that his son Merovaeus fought with the Romans against Attila on the Mauriac plains. Childeric, son of Merovaeus, also served the empire under Count Aegidius and subsequently under Count Paul, whom he assisted in repelling the Saxons from Angers. Childeric died at Tournai, his capital, where his tomb was found in 1653 (Cochet, Le tombeau de Childéric, Paris, 1859). But Childeric did not transmit to his son Clovis, who succeeded him in 481, the entire inheritance left by Clodion. The latter seems to have reigned over all the Cis-Rhenish Franks, and the monarchy was divided among his descendants, although the exact time of the division is not known. There were now two Frankish groups: the Ripuarians, who occupied the banks of the Rhine and whose kings resided in Cologne, and the Salians who had established themselves in the Low Countries. The Salians did not form a single kingdom; besides the Kingdom of Tournai there were kingdoms with centres at Cambrai and Tongres. Their sovereigns, both Salian and Ripuarian, belonged to the Merovingian family and seem to have been descended from Clodion.

When Clovis began to reign in 481, he was, like his father, King of Tournai only, but at an early date he began his career of conquest. In 486 he over threw the monarchy that Syagrius, son of Aegidius, had carved out for himself in Northern Gaul, and set up his court at Soissons; in 490 and 491 he took possession of the Salian Kingdoms of Cambrai and Tongres; in 496 he triumphantly repelled an invasion of the Alamanni; in 500 he interposed in the war of the Burgundian kings; in 506 he conquered Aquitaine; and at length he annexed the Ripuarian Kingdom of Cologne. Henceforth Gaul, from the Pyrenees to the Rhine, was subject to Clovis, with the exception of the territory in the southeast, i.e. the kingdom of the Burgundians and Provence. Established at Paris, Clovis governed this kingdom by virtue of an agreement concluded with the bishops of Gaul, according to which natives and barbarians were to be on terms of equality, and all cause of friction between the two races was removed when, in 496, the king was converted to Catholicism. The Frankish kingdom thereupon took its place in history under more promising conditions than were to be found in any other state founded upon the ruins of the Roman Empire. All free men bore the title of Frank, had the same political status, and were eligible to the same offices. Besides, each individual observed the law of the people among whom he belonged; the Gallo-Roman lived according to the code, the barbarian according to the Salian or Ripuarian law; in other words, the law was personal, not territorial. If there were any privileges they belonged to the Gallo-Romans, who, in the beginning were the only ones on whom the episcopal dignity was conferred. The king governed the provinces through his counts, and had a considerable voice in the selection of the clergy. The drawing up of the Salian Law (Lex Salica), which seems to date from the early part of the reign of Clovis, and the Council of Orléans, convoked by him and held in the last year of his reign, prove that the legislative activity of this king was not eclipsed by his military energy (see CLOVIS). Although founder of a kingdom destined to such a brilliant future, Clovis did not know how to shield it against a custom in vogue among the barbarians, i.e. the division of power among the sons of the king. This custom originated in the pagan idea that all kings were intended to reign because they were descended from the gods. Divine blood flowed in the veins of all the king's sons, each of whom, therefore, being a king by birth, must have his share of the kingdom. This view, incompatible with the formation of a powerful, durable monarchy, had been vigorously rejected by Genseric the Vandal, who, to secure the indivisibility of his kingdom, had established in his family a certain order of succession. Either because he died suddenly or for some other reason, Clovis took no measures to abolish this custom, which continued among the Franks until the middle of the ninth century and, more than once, endangered their nationality.

After the death of Clovis, therefore, his four sons divided his kingdom, each reigning from a different centre: Thierry at Metz, Clodomir at Orléans, Childebert at Paris, and Clotaire at Soissons. They continued the career of conquest inaugurated by their father, and, in spite of the frequent discords that divided them, augmented the estates he had left them. The principal events of their reign were:

• The destruction of the Kingdom of Thuringia by Thierry in 531, which extended Frankish power into the heart of what is now Germany;
• the conquest of the Kingdom of the Burgundians by Childebert and Clotaire in 532, after their brother Clodomir had perished in a previous attempt to overthrow it in 524;
• the cession of Provence to the Franks by the Ostrogoths in 536, on condition that the former would assist them in the war just declared against them by Emperor Justinian. But instead of helping the Ostrogoths, the Franks under Theudebert, son of Thierry, taking shameful advantage of this oppressed people, cruelly pillaged Italy until the bands under the command of Leuthar and Butilin were exterminated by Narses in 553.

The death of Theudebert, in 548, was soon followed by that of his son Theobald, in 555, and by the death of Childebert in 558, Clotaire I, the last of the four brothers, becoming sole heir to the estate of his father, Clovis. Clotaire reduced the Saxons and Bavarians to a state of vassalage, and died in 561 leaving four sons; once more the monarchy was divided, being partitioned in about the same way as on the death of Clovis in 511: Gontran reigned at Orléans, Charibert at Paris, Sigebert at Reims, and Chilperic at Soissons. Charibert's death in 567 and the division of his estate occasioned quarrels between Chilperic and Sigebert, already at odds on account of their wives. Unlike his brothers, who had been satisfied to marry serving-women, Sigebert had won the hand of the beautiful Brunehilde, daughter of Athanagild, King of the Visigoths. Chilperic had followed Sigebert's example by marrying Galeswintha, Brunehilde's sister, but at the instigation of his mistress, Fredegonda, he soon had Galeswintha assassinated and placed Fredegonda upon the throne. Brunehilde's determination to avenge the death of her sister involved in bitter strife not only the two women but their husbands. In 575 Sigebert, who was repeatedly provoked by Chilperic, took the field, resolved to bring the quarrel to a conclusion. Chilperic, already banished from his kingdom, had taken refuge behind the walls of Tournai, whence he had no hope of escape, when, just as Sigebert's soldiers were about to raise him to the throne, he was felled by assassins sent by Fredegonda. Immediately the aspect of affairs changed: Brunehilde, humiliated and taken prisoner, escaped only with the greatest difficulty and after the most thrilling adventures, while Fredegonda and Chilperic exulted in their triumph. The rivalry between the two kingdoms, henceforth known respectively as Austrasia (Kingdom of the East) and Neustria (Kingdom of the West), only grew fiercer. Gontran's kingdom continued to be called Burgundy. First the nobles of Austrasia and then Brunehilde who had become regent, led the campaign against Chilperic, who perished in 584 at the hand of an assassin. The murderer could not be ascertained. During this period of intestine strife, King Gontran was vainly endeavouring to wrest Septimania from the Visigoths, as well as defend himself against the pretender Gondowald, the natural son of Clotaire I, who, aided by the nobles, tried to seize part of the kingdom, but fell in the attempt. When Gontran died in 592, his inheritance passed to Childebert II, son of Sigebert and Brunehilde, and after this king's death in 595 his states were divided between his two sons, Theudebert II taking and Thierry II Burgundy. In 600 and 604 the two brothers united their forces against Clotaire II, son of Chilperic and Fredegonda, and reduced him to the condition of a petty king. Soon, however, jealousy sprang up between the two brothers, they waged war on each other, and Theudebert, twice defeated, was killed. The victorious Thierry was about inflict a like fate on Clotaire II, but died in 613, being still young and undoubtedly the victim of the excesses that had shortened the careers of most of the Merovingian princes. Brunehilde, who, throughout the reigns of her son and grandsons, had been very influential, now assumed the guardianship of her great-grandson, Sigebert II, and the government of the two kingdoms. But the earlier struggle between monarchical absolutism and the independence of the Frankish nobility now broke out with tragic violence. It had long been latent, but the sight of a woman exercising absolute power caused it to break forth with boundless fury. The Austrasian nobles, eager to avenge the sad fate of Thierry, joined with Clotaire II, King of Neustria, who took possession of the Kingdoms of Burgundy and Austrasia. The children of Thierry II were slain. Brunehilde, who fell into the hands of the victor, was tied to the tail of a wild horse and perished (613). She had erred in imposing a despotic government on a people who chafed under government of any kind. Her punishment was a frightful death and the cruel calumnies with which her conquerors blackened her memory.

The nobles had triumphed. They dictated to Clotaire II the terms of victory and he accepted them in the celebrated edict of 614, at least a partial capitulation of Frankish royalty to the nobility. The king promised to withdraw his counts from the provinces under his rule, i.e. he was virtually to abandon these parts to the nobles, who were also to have a voice in the selection of the prime minister or "mayor of the palace", as he was then called. He likewise promised to abolish the new taxes and to respect the immunity of the clergy, and not to interfere in the elections of bishops. He had also to continue Austrasia and Neustria as separate governments. Thus ended the conflict between the Frankish aristocracy and the monarchical power; with its close began a new period in the history of the Merovingian monarchy. As time went on royalty had to reckon more and more with the aristocracy. The Merovingian dynasty, traditionally accustomed to absolutism, and incapable of altering its point of view, was gradually deprived of all exercise of authority. In the shadow of the throne the new power continued to grow rapidly, become the successful rival of the royal house, and finally supplanted it. The great power of the aristocracy was vested in the mayor of the palace (major domus), originally the chief of the royal household. During the minority of the Frankish kings he acquired steadily greater importance until he came to share the royal prerogative, and eventually reached the exalted position of prime minister to the sovereign. The indifference of the latter, usually more absorbed in his pleasures than in public affairs, favoured the encroachments of the mayor of the palace", and this office finally became the hereditary right of one family, which was destined to replace the Merovingians and become the national dynasty of the Franks. Such then were the transformations which occurred in the political life of the Franks after the downfall of Brunehilde and during the reign of Clotaire II (614-29). While this king governed Neustria he was obliged, as has been said, to give Austrasia a separate government, his son Dagobert becoming its king, with Arnulf of Metz as councillor and Pepin of Landen as mayor of the palace (623). These two men were the ancestors of the Carolingian family. Arnulf was Bishop of Metz, though resident at court, but in 627 he resigned his episcopal see and retired into monastic solitude at Remiremont, where he died in the odour of sanctity. Pepin, incorrectly called of Landen (since it was only in the twelfth century that the chroniclers of Brabant began to associate him with that locality), was a great lord from Eastern Belgium. With Arnulf he had been at the head of the Austrasian opposition to Brunehilde.

On the death of Clotaire II, Dagobert I, his only heir, reestablished the unity of the Frankish monarchy and took up his residence in Paris, as Clovis had done in the past. He too was soon forced to give Austrasia a separate government, which he confided to his son Sigebert III, with Cunibert of Cologne as his Councillor and Adalgisil, son of Arnulf of Metz and son-in-law of Pepin, as mayor of the palace. Pepin, who had lost royal favour, was temporarily deprived of any voice in the government. The reign of Dagobert I was one of such great pomp and outward show, that contemporaries compared it to that of Solomon; however, it marked a decline in the military prowess of the Franks. They subdued, it is true, the small nations of the Bretons and Basques, but were themselves beaten by the Frankish merchant Samo, who had created a Slavonic kingdom on their eastern confines. Dagobert relieved the situation only by exterminating the Bulgars who had taken refuge in Bavaria. Like most of his race, Dagobert was subject to the females of his family. He died young and was buried in the celebrated Abbey of Saint-Denis which he had founded and which subsequently became the burial-place of the kings of France. After his death Austrasia and Neustria (the latter united with Burgundy) had the same destiny under their respective kings and mayors of the palace. In Neustria the young king, Clovis II, reigned under the guardianship of his mother, Nanthilde, with Aega, and later Erkinoald, as mayor of the palace. Sigebert III reigned in Austrasia with Pepin of Landen, who had returned and was installed as mayor of the palace after the death of Dagobert. The history of Austrasia is better known to us as far as 657 because, at that time, it had a chronicler. On the death of Pepin of Landen in 639, Otto, mayor of the palace, took the reins of power, but was overthrown and replaced by Grimoald, son of Pepin. Grimoald went even further; when, in 656, Sigebert III died, he conceived the bold plan of seizing the crown for the benefit of his family: He banished young Dagobert II, son of Sigebert, to an Irish monastery. Not daring to ascend the throne himself, he followed the example of Odoacer and gave it to his son Childebert. But this attempt, as bold as it was premature, caused his downfall. He was delivered up to Clovis II by the Austrasian nobles and, so far as can be ascertained, seems to have perished in prison. Clovis II remained sole master of the entire Frankish monarchy, but died the following year, 657.

Clotaire III (657-70), son of Clovis, succeeded his father as head of the entire monarchy under the guardianship of his mother, Bathilde, with Erkinoald as mayor of the palace. But like Clotaire II, in 614, Clovis was constrained in 660 to grant Austrasia a separate rule, and appointed his brother Childeric II its king, with Wulfoald as mayor of the palace. Austrasia was now overshadowed by Neustria owing to the strong personality of Ebroin, Erkinoald's successor as mayor of the palace. Like Brunehilde, Ebroin sought to establish a strong government and, like her, drew upon himself the passionate opposition of the aristocracy. The latter, under the leadership of St. Léger (Leodegarius), Bishop of Autun, succeeded in overthrowing Ebroin. He and King Thierry III who, in 670, had succeeded his brother Clotaire III, were consigned to a convent, Childeric II, King of Austrasia, being, summoned to replace him. Once again monarchical unity was re-established, but it was not destined to last long. Wulfoald, mayor of Austrasia, was banished, also St. Léger. Childeric II was assassinated and for a short time general anarchy reigned. However, Wulfoald, who managed to return, proclaimed King of Austrasia young Dagobert II, who had come back from exile in Ireland, while St. Léger, reinstated in Neustria, upheld King Thierry III. But Ebroin, who meanwhile had been forgotten, escaped from prison. He invaded Neustria, defeated the mayor Leudesius, Erkinoald's son, who, with the approval of St. Léger was governing this kingdom, reassumed the power, and maltreated the Bishop of Autun, whom he caused to be slain by hired assassins (678). He afterwards attacked Austrasia, banished Wulfoald, and had King Thierry III acknowledged. The opposition shown Ebroin by the Austrasian nobles under the leadership of Pippin II and Martin was broken at Laffaux (Latofao), where Martin perished, and Pepin disappeared for a while. Ebroin was then for some years real sovereign of the Frankish monarchy and exercised a degree of power that none save Clovis I and Clotaire I had possessed. There are few characters of whom it is as difficult to form a just estimate as of this powerful political genius who, without any legal authority, and solely by dint of his indomitable will, acquired supreme control of the Frankish monarchy and warded off for a time the reforms of the aristocracy. The friendship professed for Ebroin by Saint Ouen, the great Bishop of Rouen, seems to indicate that he was better than his reputation, which, like that of Brunehilde, was intentionally blackened by chroniclers who sympathized with the Frankish nobles.

Ebroin's disappearance afforded full scope to the power of the family which was now called on to give a new dynasty to the Franks. Forced to remain in obscurity for over twenty years. consequence of Grimoald's crime and downfall, this family finally reappeared at the head of Austrasia under Pepin II, inappropriately called Pepin of Heristal. There flowed in the veins of Pepin II, son of Adalgisil and of St. Begga daughter of Pepin I, the blood of the two illustrious men who, by the overthrow of Brunehilde, had established a moderate monarchy in Austrasia. Despite the defeat inflicted on him by Ebroin, Pepin remained the leader and the hope of the Austrasians, and, after the death of his adversary, vigorously resumed the kingdom which was then disturbed by the rivalry between Waratton, mayor of the palace, and his son Gislemar. From 681 to 686 the functions of mayor of the palace were alternately discharged by Waratton and Gislemar, again by Waratton, and finally, at his death, by his son-in-law Berthar. Pepin, who seems to have had amicable relations with Waratton, would not acknowledge Berthar, whom he overthrew in the battle of Testri near Soissons (687); in this way Austrasia avenged the above-mentioned defeat at Laffaux. The death of Berthar, assassinated in 688, removed the last obstacle to the authority of Pepin in Neustria, who was thenceforth simultaneously mayor of the palace for all three kingdoms. So vast was his power that from that date history merely mentions the names of the Merovingian kings whom he kept on the throne: Thierry III (d. 691), Clovis III (d. 695), Childebert III (d. 711), and Dagobert III (d. 715). Indeed, it is only for a traditional fiction of history that Pepin II is not put down as the first sovereign of the Carolingian dynasty. The direction of the destinies of the Frankish monarchy now passed from the hands of the Salian into those of the Ripuarian Franks. These constituted the Germanic element of the nation which took the place of the Roman party in the government. Their policy was better adapted to the spirit of the times inasmuch as it abolished the traditional absolutism of the Merovingians. Finally the Carolingians had the merit and the satisfaction (for it was both) of re- establishing unity in the Frankish monarchy which had been so frequently divided; from 687 to 843, that is, for over a century and a half, all the Franks were united under the same government. But Pepin II did not confine himself to restoring Frankish unity; he extended the frontiers of the monarchy by subduing the Frisians, his neighbours on the north. These restless barbarians, who occupied a large portion of the present Kingdom of the Netherlands, were fanatical pagans; Ratbod, their duke, was a bitter enemy of Christianity. Pepin forced him to surrender Western Frisia, which nearly corresponded to the present provinces of South and North Holland, and obliged him to keep the peace for the rest of his life.

Pepin could now consider the Kingdom of the Franks as an hereditary patrimony, and he conferred the mayoralty of Neustria on his son Grimoald. At his death in 714, which was subsequent to that of his two sons Grimoald and Drogon, he bequeathed the entire monarchy, as a family heritage, to his grandson Theodoald, Grimoald's son, still a minor. This act was a political blunder suggested to the clear- minded Pepin on his death-bed by his wife Plectrude. Pepin had a son Charles by a mistress named Alpaïde, who at his father's death was twenty-six years of age and quite capable, as events showed, of vigorously defending the paternal inheritance. It cannot be said that the stigma of illegitimacy caused him to be put aside, for Thedoald was also a natural son, but the blood of the ambitious Plectrude coursed through the latter's veins, and she reigned in his name. The people, however, would not now submit to the regency of a woman any more than in the time of Brunehilde. There was a universal uprising among the Neustrians, Aquitainians, and Frisians. Elsewhere may be found an account of these struggles. (See CHARLES MARTEL.) Here it suffices to say that Plectrude was soon cast aside and Charles Martel, whom she had thrown into prison, escaped and placed himself at the head of the national Austrasian party. Defeated at first, but soon victorious over all his enemies, Charles reduced nearly all the rebellious tribes to obedience, not only those just named, but also the Bavarians and Alamanni. His greatest service to civilization was the glorious victory over the Arabs between Tours and Poitiers (732), which earned him the name of Martel, the hammer. This conquest saved Christianity and preserved Europe from the power of the Mussulmans. It was not, however, Charles's last encounter with the Arabs; he banished them from Provence and in 739 defeated them again on the banks of the Berre near Narbonne. This sovereign, whose exclusively military career consisted in restoring, by dint of force, an empire that was crumbling away, could not escape the accusation of having abetted violence in others and resorted to it himself. He has especially been charged with secularizing many ecclesiastical estates, which he took from churches and abbeys and gave in fief to his warriors as a recompense for their services. This land actually remained the property of the ecclesiastical establishments in questions but its hereditary usufruct was assured to the new occupants. This expedient enabled Charles Martel to collect an army and secure faithful followers. Another no less censurable practice was that of conferring the highest ecclesiastical dignities whose only right was that they were loyal soldiers of Charles Martel. However, it must be remembered that those measures enabled him to muster the forces with which he saved Christian civilization at Tours. He also aided efficaciously St. Boniface in his project of spreading the Christian Faith throughout Germany. Such were the popularity and prestige of Charles that when, in 737, King Thierry IV died, he saw no necessity of providing a successor for him, and reigned alone. He died at Quierzy-sur-Oise 21 October, 741, after having divided the provinces between his two sons: Carloman received Austrasia with its Germanic dependencies, and Pepin, Neustria, Burgundy, and Provence, while Grifon, a natural son, was excluded from the succession as Charles himself had been.

Pepin and Carloman reigned together until 747, supporting each other in their various enterprises and combating the same enemies. During the first years of their administrations they had to subdue the revolts of the Alamanni, as well as those of their brother Grifon, and of Odilo, Duke of Bavaria. They conquered all the rebels, but left to Aquitaine and Bavaria their national dukes while they abolished the Duchy of Alamannia. They also undertook the great work of reforming the Frankish Church, into which several generations of civil wars had introduced great disorders. National councils convoked, by their efforts, in Austrasia (at Estinnes, or Lestinnes) and Neustria (at Soissons) the work of which was completed by a large council attended by the bishops of both countries, were largely instrumental in restoring order and discipline in the Church, in eliminating abuses and in rooting out superstition. St. Boniface, the soul of this great work, after having, to some extent, created the Church of Germany, had also the glory of regenerating the Frankish Church. While in this twofold task of defending the kingdom and reforming the Church, the two brothers thought of reinstating a Merovingian king (743), although for six years the nation had existed without one. It would seem that they were led to do this by the necessity of removing one of the objections that could be made to their authority, at a time when it was assailed on all sides and when they were treated as usurpers. Under these circumstances they placed upon the throne Childeric III, the last Merovingian king.

When the task common to both brothers was nearly accomplished, Carloman, yielding to the inclination he had always felt for the religious life, relinquished all his states in favour of Pepin and retired to a cloister on Mt. Soracte near Rome (747). Pepin, who thus remained alone at the head of the vast Frankish monarchy, reaped all the fruit of their combined labours. It was easy for him to subdue a last revolt by Grifon, who perished in Italy. Afterwards he enjoyed a few years of peace, a rare privilege in those stormy times. Having now become the undisputed master of the greatest nation of Europe, and confident of being able to transmit intact to his sons the power he had received from his father, Pepin considered the question whether the time had not come to assume the name to which his sovereign authority entitled him. Such a step could hardly be objected to when he was virtually king. Since the Merovingian who occupied the throne was there only at Pepin's will, it was surely Pepin's privilege to remove him. Einhard describes the character of the royalty of the last Merovingians whom the princes of Pepin's family tolerated or replaced upon the throne.

This king to whom nothing royal had been left save the title of king, sat on the throne and, with long hair and unkempt beard, played the part of master. He gave audience the ambassadors who came from various countries and issued replies that had been dictated to him, as if coming from himself. In reality outside of a hollow name and a doubtful pension paid him at the will of the mayor of the palace, he had nothing for his own save a small farm where he lived with a small number of serfs. When he went out, he rode in an ox-cart driven by a rustic driver. In this vehicle he annually attended the Champs de Mai. The mayor of the palace alone controlled public affairs.

This description, it is true, is somewhat of a caricature, and there is evidence in public charters that the position of the Merovingian kings was not as insecure as Einhard says. Nevertheless, it expresses well the marked contrast between the humiliating position of the king and the exalted, powerful standing of the mayor of the palace. It can be understood, therefore, that in 751, Pepin and the Frankish nobles might well discuss the question as to whether he should assume the kingly crown. The question had a moral side, namely, whether it was lawful to assume a title which seemed to belong to another. It was decided to appeal for a solution to the sovereign pontiff, recognized by all as the custodian and interpreter of the moral law. A Frankish embassy left for Rome and submitted the question to Pope Zachary. The latter's reply was given in the form of a declaration of principles admirably embodying Catholic doctrine on this important point: "ut melius esset", said the pope, "illum regem vocari, qui potestatem haberes, quam illum qui sine regali potestate maneret" [it were better for him to be called the king who holds the power than the one who remains (king in name) without the regal power]. Reassured by this decision, Pepin hesitated no longer, and had himself proclaimed king at Soissons in 751. Childeric III was sent to end his days in a cloister. The nature of the authority with which Pepin was invested was emphasized for the first time among the Franks, by the coronation ceremony, which imparted a religious nature to his power and imprinted upon him a sacred character. It has been said, but without proof, that St. Boniface attended the coronation. In this way, after having exercised the royal power almost uninterruptedly for over a century, the descendants of Arnulf and Pepin finally assumed the title of sovereign and the Carolingian dynasty replaced that of the Merovingians on the Frankish throne.

GODEFROI KURTH

Johann Baptist Franzelin

Cardinal and theologian; b. at Aldein, in the Tyrol, 15 April, 1816; d. at Rome, 11 Dec., 1886. Despite their poverty, his parents sent him at an early age to the neighboring Franciscan college at Bozano. In 1834 he entered the Society of Jesus at Graz, and after some years spent in higher studies and teaching in Austrian Poland began in 1845 his course of theology in the Roman college of the Society, where he acted as an assistant in Hebrew, in which he was especially proficient. Driven from Rome by the revolution of 1848, he went successively to England, Belgium, and France, where he was ordained in 1849. In 1850 he returned to the Roman college as assistant professor of dogma, and lecturer on Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldean. In 1853 he became prefect of studies in the German college, and in 1857 professor of dogmatic theology in the Roman college, where he remained for nineteen years, winning for himself by his lectures and publications a foremost place among the theologians of that time. During this period he acted as Consultor to several Roman Congregations, and aided in the preliminaries of the Vatican Council, in which he afterwards served as papal theologian. In 1876, despite his sincere and strenuous protests, he was raised to the cardinalate by Pius IX. This dignity made almost no change in his scrupulously simple and laborious life. He continued his use of poor garments; occupied but two bare rooms in the Jesuit novitiate of Sant' Andrea; rose every morning at four and spent the time till seven in devotional exercises, always hearing Mass after saying his own; fasted every Saturday, and toward the end of his days, Friday also, besides using other forms of corporal penance.

Though of delicate heath, Franzelin had always been a constant and most laborious worker, never allowing himself any long recreation during his long years of poor health, severe toils, and painful scruples, save the short recreation after dinner and supper. As a cardinal, his sole departure from strict adherence to the Jesuit rule was to omit this daily recreation. Moreover, though constantly engaged as prefect of the Congregation of Indulgences and Relics, and consultor of several other congregations, he steadily refused the aid of a secretary. His entire income as cardinal he distributed among the poor, the foreign missions, and converts whose property had been seized by the Italian government. As a theologian, Franzelin takes high rank. From the first his works were recognized as a mine of rich material for the preacher; and for years he was accustomed to receive numerous letters from priests in all parts of the world, spontaneously acknowledging the great aid in preaching they had derived from his books. Of his works, which have gone through numerous editions, the treatise "De Divina Traditione et Scriptura" (Rome, 1870) is considered classical. The others are "De SS. Eucharistiæ Sacramento et Sacrificio" (1868); "De Sacramentis in Genere" (1868); "De Deo Trino" (1869); "De Deo Uno" (1870); "De Verbo Incarnato" (1870); some smaller treatises, and the posthumous "De Ecclesia Christi".

Bonavenia, Raccolta di Memorie intorno alla vita dell' Em. Cardinale Giovanni Battista Franzelin (Rome, 1887); Walsh, John Baptist Franzelin, A Sketch and a Study (Dublin 1895); Commentarius de Vita Eminentissimi Auctoris in Franzelin's posthumous work, de Ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887); Hurter, Nomenclator.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

Frascati

DIOCESE OF FRASCATI (TUSCULANA).

One of the six suburbicarian (i.e. neighbouring) dioceses from an immemorial date closely related to the Roman Church. The city of Frascati is about twelve miles from Rome on the northern slopes of the Alban Hills, pleasantly and healthfully situated. Its principal source of wealth is its vineyards, which yield an excellent wine. The history of the city (population, 10,000) is bound up with that of ancient Tusculum, which, according to the legend, was founded by Telegonus, the son of Ulysses and Circe. In the kingly period Tusculum was an ally of Rome, to which it later became subject. After the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, Octavius Manilius, the tyrant of Tusculum, and son-in-law of Tarquinius, roused the Latin communes against the Roman Republic (507 B. C.); they were routed, however, at the battle of Lake Regillus (496 B. C.). In 493 the Latin League with Rome was renewed. After the disastrous battles of Vesuvius and Trifanum (338 B. C.), Rome, in order to detach Tusculum and other towns from the Latin League, conferred on them the privilege of the highest citizenship (jus suffragii et honorum). While the other Latin towns waned steadily, Tusculum grew and became in the course of time the favourite pleasure resort of the rich Roman nobles, whose sumptuous villas were scattered over the slopes of the hill; many of them can even yet be identified among the mass of ruins. The Villa of Lucullus, now the Villa Torlonia, the most splendid of them all, was famous for its library. The Villa of Agrippina, the Villa of Claudius, and those of the Flavian emperors stood on the site of modern Frascati. That of Marcus Porcius Cato, the Censor, rose on the site now occupied by the village of Monte Porzio Catone, named therefrom. Tiberius, Julia, and Vespasian also had villas at Tusculum. The exact site of Cicero's villa, where he wrote the "Disputationes Tusculanæ" and other works, is a matter of learned controversy. In the opinion of some it occupied the present site of the monastery of Grottaferrata; others hold that it was near the modern Villa Rufinella. A more probable opinion is that it stood on the knoll above Grottaferrata. To adorn it Cicero commissioned his friend Atticus to purchase statues in Athens, the cost of which almost ruined him financially. When he was exiled in 58 B. C. the villa was sacked, and the Consul Gabinius carried off much booty to his own house. On the top of the hill near the western gate of the old town, there are to be seen even to-day the ruins of an immense villa, discovered by Canina, who drew a plan of it; it is commonly but erroneously known as the Villa of Tiberius. The ancient town was built along the ridge of the hill, about 2000 feet above the sea-level. There remain the ruins of the Greek theatre, the fortress with megalithic walls, and an amphitheatre locally known as Scuola di Cicerone (Cicero's School); there are also rough roads paved with huge polygonal blocks of stone, and lined with tombs, grottoes, etc. Excavations were begun by the Jesuits in 1741, and were placed by Lucien Bonaparte under the direction of Biondi and Amati in 1819; later Maria Christina of Savoy had the work carried on by Canina, who wrote a description of the discoveries. Some of the most beautiful sculptures in the Vatican Museum and elsewhere at Rome were found at Tusculum.

Among the many inscriptions found at Frascati very few are Christian, and the excavations so far show no trace of early Christianity. The basilica of the monastery at Grottaferrata, and the chapel of San Cesario, close to the modern episcopal residence, are the only Christian monuments that antedate the destruction of ancient Tusculum in 1191. Nevertheless from its very proximity to Rome, Tusculum must have received the Christian Faith at an early date. Perhaps the villa of the Acilii, a Christian family, on the site of which stands the monastery of Grottaferrata, was the cradle of Christianity for the people of Tusculum. The first known Bishop of Tusculum is Vitalianus in 680, whose subscription appears on Pope Agatho's letter to the Sixth General Council. Being one of the suburbicarian bishops, the Bishop of Tusculum from the seventh century was bound to take his turn in replacing the pope at the functions in the Lateran; but it is not till the time of Bishop Pietro (1050) that we find the title of cardinal given to the Bishop of Tusculum. From the tenth century onwards the Counts of Tusculum exercised a preponderant influence over the Government of Rome and the papacy itself. Theophylactus, Senator of the Romans and founder of the family, was the husband of Theodora, who under Sergius III was absolute mistress of Rome, and whose daughter Marozia married Alberic I, Margrave of Camerino and Duke of Spoleto, father of Alberic II, who from 932 to 954 ruled Rome under the title of Patrician and Senator, and obtained from the Romans the assurance that after his death his son Octavian should be made pope (John XII). When John XII was deposed (963), the Counts of Tusculum yielded for a time to the Crescenzi, but their power was soon restored to them. From 1012 to 1044 three popes of the great Tusculan family succeeded one another: Benedict VIII, his brother John XIX, and their nephew Benedict IX. The Tusculan domination, it is well known, was far from creditable to the Roman Church. Benedict VIII alone has a claim to our respect (Kleinermanns, "Papst Benedict VIII", in "Der Katholik", 1887, II, 407, 480, 624). It was Count Gregory I, father of Benedict VIII, who gave to St. Nilus (1002) the monastery of Grottaferrata. In the conflict over Investitures between Paschal II and Henry V (1111), while Tolomeo, Count of Tusculum, was on the emperor's side, Cardinal-Bishop Giovanni led the Roman opposition to Henry. Under Alexander III, however, Bishop Imaro sided with Antipope Victor IV, though Tusculum itself was in favour of Pope Alexander. The town also opposed the Roman Senate in its attempt to deprive the popes of their temporal power. In 1182 the Romans made war on Tusculum, whereupon Archbishop Christian of Mainz was called in by Pope Lucius III and defeated the Romans. In 1191, Henry VI recalled the German garrison from Tusculum and, as a result, the town was soon destroyed by the Romans and never regained its former prestige (Lugari, L'origine di Frascati e la distruzione di Tivoli, Rome, 1891).

In time the people of Tusculum gathered around the Castello di San Cesario, and the village thus begun was called Frascati, either because of the frasche (wattles) of which the first huts were built, or because the locality had already been known as Frascaria, which in Low Latin means a place covered with underbrush. From the fifteenth century Frascati once more became a favourite health resort of Roman cardinals and nobles. Foremost among the edifices that soon ornamented Frascati are the Villa Mondragone, built by Cardinal Marco Sittico d'Altemps, a nephew of Pius IV, a vast structure with a splendid portico, now used as a Jesuit college; Villa Taverna, now Borghesiana, founded in 1614; Villa Falconieri, the work of Borromini (1648), with paintings by Carlo Maratta (The Birth of Venus), Ciro Ferri, and Pierleone Ghezzi (caricatures and portraits of himself); in 1901 it was bought by the Trappists and now belongs to the German Emperor; Villa Lancellotti with its glorious forest drives, where may be seen the little church of San Michele, over which is a small room in which Cardinal Baronius wrote his "Annales Ecclesiastici"; Villa Rufinella, higher up the hill, a Jesuit college from 1740 to 1773, which later belonged to the House of Savoy, and is now united to the Villa Lancellotti; Villa Aldobrandini (or Belvedere), the most beautiful of the Frascati villas, built in 1603 by Pietro Cardinal Aldobrandini from designs by Giovanni Fontana, with paintings by Il Cavaliere d'Arpino and by Domenichino (the Myth of Apollo); Villa Torlonia, with its numerous fountains; Villa Sora, built by Gregory XIII, now used as a Salesian boarding school. Among the important churches are: the cathedral, the work of Girolamo Fontana; the Gesù, with its imitation cupola painted by the Jesuit Oblate Pozzo; San Rocco, formerly known as S. Maria in Vivario, the cathedral until 1700; Madonna di Capo Croce, and Madonna delle Scuole Pie.

Among the Tusculum bishops of note are Egidius, sent by John XII to Poland in 964; the learned Jacques de Vitry (1228), who preached against the Albigenses; Pietro di Lisbona (1276), chief physician of Gregory IX, and afterwards pope as John XXI; Berengarius of Frédol (1309), who collaborated on the "Liber Sextus Decretalium" of Boniface VIII; Baldassare Cossa (1419), after his submission to Martin V; Giuliano Cesarini (1444); Bessarion (1449); Alessandro Farnese (1519), afterwards Paul III; Giovanni Pietro Caraffa (1550), afterwards Paul IV; Giovanni Antonio Serbelloni (1583); Lorenzo Corsini (1725), afterwards Clement XII; Henry Benedict, Duke of York (1761-1807), son of James III, the English Pretender (Cardinal York left his rare collection of books to the seminary library); Bartolomeo Pacca (1818); Francesco Xaviero Castiglione (1821), afterwards Pius VIII; Luigi Micara, the Capuchin (1837); Jean-Baptiste Pitra (1879); and Francesco di Paola Satolli (1904), for several years the first Apostolic Delegate at Washington, U.S.A. In the Diocese of Frascati is situated Monte Compatri, the ancient Labicum, whose cardinal-bishops are often mentioned in medieval history. The diocese has 8 parishes and 16,000 souls, 9 monasteries for men (among them the famous Abbey of Grottaferrata, and one Camaldolese monastery).

TOMMASSETTI, Della campagna Romana in Archivio della Reale Società Romana di Storia Patria, IX, sqq.; CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1844), I, 625-51; MATTEI, Memorie istoriche dell'antico Tuscolo (Rome, 1836); GROSSI-GONDI, Le ville tusculane del rinascimento (Rome, 1901); IDEM, Le ville tusculane dell'età classica (Rome, 1907).

U. BENIGNI

Claude Frassen

A celebrated Scotist theologian and philosopher of the Order of Friars Minor; b. near Peronne, France, in 1620; d. at Paris, 26 February, 1711. He entered the Franciscan Order at Peronne in his seventeenth year; and after the year of novitiate was sent to Paris, where he completed his studies and remained for thirty years as professor of philosophy and theology. In 1662 he was made doctor of the Sorbonne, and as definitor general, to which oflice he was elected in 1682, he took part in the general chapters of the order at Toledo and Rome. Outside of the order his counsel was sought not only by ecclesiastics but likewise by secular dignitaries, King Louis XIV of France, in particular, holding him in high esteem. He died at the ripe old age of ninety-one years, seventy-four of which he had spent in religion. Of the writings of Frassen the best known is his "Scotus Academicus". This work is rightly considered one of the most important and scholarly presentations of the theology of Duns Scotus. Few, if any, of the numerous interpreters and commentators of Scotus have succeeded so well as Frassen in combining simplicity of style and clearness of method with that subtleness of thought which characterizes Scotistic theology as a whole. The value of the work is enhanced by frequent quotations from the Fathers, and by an impartial statement of all contraverted questions in scholastic theology. The first volume is prefaced with a chronological list and a brief historical and dogmatical account of the different heresies from the beginnings of Christianity to the fifteenth century. The latest edition of the "Scotus Academicus", published by the Friars Minor (Rome, 1900-02) in twelve volumes, was prepared from notes left by the author himself and preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris. Ealier editions were those of Paris (1672-77), Rome (1721), and Venice (1744). Frassen is also the author of a "Cursus Philosophiae", published at Paris in 1688 and at Venice in 1767. On Scripture, he wrote "Disquisitiones Biblicae", vol. I (Paris, 1682); vol. II: "Disquisitiones in Pentateuchum" (Rouen, 1705).

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Fraticelli

(Or Fratricelli)

A name given to various heretical sects which appeared in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, principally in Italy. The word being frequently a misnomer, a definition is apposite. Considered philologically, Fraticelli is a diminutive derived from the Italian frate (plural frati). Frati was a designation of the members of the mendicant orders founded during the thirteenth century, principally the Franciscans or Friars Minor. The Latin Fraterculus does not occur in the old records which concern the Fraticelli. Etymologically the name Friars Minor (Fratres Minores) is equivalent to the diminutive Fraticellus. The ideal of the founder of the Friars Minor, St. Francis, was that his disciples by evangelical poverty, complete self-denial, and humility, should lead the world back to Christ. The Italian people designated as Fraticelli all the members of religious, particularly mendicant, orders, and especially solitaries, whether these observed a definite rule or regulated their own lives.

In this article the name Fraticelli is confined to heretical sects which separated from the Franciscan Order on account of the disputes concerning poverty. The Apostolics (Pseudo-Apostles or Apostolic Brethren) are excluded from the category, because admission to the Order of St. Francis was expressly denied to their founder, Segarelli (see Apostolici ). They had no connexion with the Minorites, in fact desired rather to exterminate them. It is therefore necessary to differentiate the various groups of Fraticelli, although the one term may be applied to all.

The origin of the Fraticelli and the cause of their growth within and without the Franciscan Order must be sought in the history of the Spirituals. It must suffice here to note that in consequence of St. Francis's severe requirements concerning the practice of poverty, his followers divided into two branches, the Zelanti, or Spirituals, and the Relaxati, known later as the Conventuals. The popes of the thirteenth century intervened to bring about harmony between the two factions, and Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Nicholas III gave in their Bulls authoritative explanations of the points at issue. But the differences were not fully adjusted nor was unity ever completely restored between the Spirituals and the main body of the order, the Community (Fratres de Communitate).

I.

The group founded by Brother Angelo da Clareno (or da Cingoli) comes first in order of time. Angelo and several brethren from the March of Ancona had been condemned (c. 1278) to imprisonment for life, but were liberated by the general of the order, Raimondo Gaufredi (1289-95) and sent to Armenia. Exiled from Armenia towards the end of 1293, they returned to Italy, where in 1294 Celestine V, who was noted for his asceticism, but whose pontificate lasted scarcely six months, willingly permitted them to live as hermits in the strict observance of the Rule of St. Francis. After the abdication of Celestine V, his successor, Boniface VIII, revoked all Celestine's concessions, and they emigrated to Greece, where some of them attacked the legality of the papal action. As the pope, through the Patriarch of Constantinople, caused active measures to be taken against them, they fled to Italy, where their leader, Fra Liberatus, attempted a vindication of their rights, first with Boniface VIII (d. 11 October, 1303), and then with Benedict XI, who also died prematurely (7 July, 1304). On his journey to Clement V (1305-14) at Lyons, Liberatus died (1307), and Angelo da Clareno succeeded to the leadership of the community. He remained in Central Italy until 1311, when he went to Avignon, where he was protected by his patrons Cardinals Giacomo Colonna and Napoleone Orsini. Early in 1317 John XXII, pursuant to a decree of Boniface VIII, declared Angelo excommunicated and placed him in custody. He defended himself ably in his "Epistola Excusatoria", representing himself as a zealous Franciscan, but John XXII refused to admit his plea, Angelo being a Celestine hermit, and in the decree "Sancta Romana et universalis ecclesia" (30 December, 1317) refused to authorize the congregation of which Angelo was head. Angelo submitted temporarily, but in 1318 fled to Central Italy, where, acting as general, he assumed charge of the congregation dissolved by the pope, appointed provincials, ministers, and custodians, established new monasteries, arrogated all authority, issued pastoral letters, and received novices; in a word, he founded an independent Franciscan Order, the Fraticelli. His adherents professed themselves the original Friars Minor. They denied that John XXII was really pope, as he had abrogated the Rule of St. Francis, which, according to their doctrine, represented the Gospel pure and simple. They asserted that his decrees were invalid, all other religious and prelates were damned, and that the commission of mortal sin deprived priests of the sacerdotal dignity and powers. These views were brought out in the trials to which the imprisoned adherents of Fra Angelo were subjected by the inquisitors, especially in 1334. In the processes of these trials and in numerous papal Bulls they are called, as a rule, Fraticelli seu fratres de paupere vitâ. As appears from the papal Bulls, the followers of Angelo established themselves in Central Italy, i. e., in the province of Rome, Umbria, and the March of Ancona, and also in Southern Italy (Campagna, Basilicata, and Naples). Fra Angelo enjoyed the protection of the Abbot of Subiaco, in spite of the fact that John XXII (21 Feb., 1334) commanded the guardian of the cloister at Ara Cœli to imprison Angelo, "the demented heretic who styles himself general of the condemned sect of the Fraticelli". Equally unsuccessful had been a papal warrant issued for his arrest (22 November, 1331), when he fled to Southern Italy. He died 15 July, 1337, and the congregation, deprived of its leader and hard pressed by the Inquisition, split into a number of groups each holding its own doctrines, though it is impossible to determine exactly their origin. It should further be noted that after the controversy regarding poverty broke out (1321-28), all the Fraticelli showed a stronger opposition to the papacy. It was only natural that men of their calibre and extreme tendencies should fall into excesses; but, schismatics and heretics as they were, the moral lapses of individuals are not to be imputed to the whole body, which after all was but loosely organized. Angelo da Clareno, despite the circumstances of his death, was venerated as a worker of miracles.

Keeping in view the earlier history of the sect, we shall have to seek traces of it in Central Italy, Umbria and the March of Ancona. Angelo was highly esteemed by the Augustinian Hermits, with whom he was on friendly terms, especially with Gentile da Foligno and Simone da Cassia, an ascetic writer of great repute. He corresponded with both, and Simone bitterly laments in the death of Angelo the loss of a friend and spiritual adviser. We may, therefore, safely assume that the Fraticelli whom Simone afterwards successfully defended against the Dominicans in the civil courts at Florence (c. 1355), where he was then preaching, were adherents of Clareno. The same is probably true, also, of the Fraticelli in Tuscany who about the same time were attacked in the sensational, though neither learned nor skillful, letters of the hermit, Fra Giovanni dalle Celle. The letters were answered by the Fraticelli. Giovanni went even so far as to use Fra Angelo as a pawn against his adversaries. These, indeed, had separated themselves entirely from the Roman Church. They had attained such power in Florence that they invited the "theologians" to public debate. The "theologians", i. e. the official clergy, did not respond. On 13 October, 1378, the priors of Florence enacted a statute against the Fraticelli; on 8 July, 1381, the city council of Florence commanded them to leave the city in two days or face the tribunal of the Inquisition. They were respected so highly, however, that, when their expatriation was demanded by the city magistrates in the same year (14 December, 1381), one of the councillors took a bold stand against the proposal.

Nevertheless, Fra Michele Berti, from Calci near Pisa, a member of the Ancona branch of Fraticelli, after preaching the Lenten course to his associates in Florence, was arrested 20 April, 1389, as he was about to leave the city, and was condemned by the Franciscan Archbishop of Florence, Bartolomeo Oleari, to be burned at the stake. He died chanting the Te Deum, while his followers, unmolested by the authorities, exhorted him to remain steadfast (30 April, 1389). To the end he maintained that John XXII had become a heretic by his four decretals; that he and his successors had forfeited the papacy, and that no priest supporting them could absolve validly.

We have unmistakable evidence that several heretical followers of Clareno were in the territory of Naples in 1362. Louis of Durazzo, a nephew of Robert, King of Naples, maintained a number of Fraticelli in a hospital adjoining his castle, Monte Sant' Angelo, and attended their services. These Fraticelli were divided into three sects: those acknowledging Tommaso da Bojano, former Bishop of Aquino; the followers of the pretended minister general, Bernard of Sicily; and those who claimed Angelo da Clareno as their founder and acknowledged only his successor as their general. All three sects agreed in holding that the true papacy had ceased since the alleged heresy of John XXII, but the party of the minister general held it lawful to accept, in case of necessity, the ministrations of priests who adhered to the papacy.

The "Poor Hermits" of Monte della Majella, near Sulmona, were also Fraticelli and adherents of Angelo da Clareno, and at one time afforded protection to the famous tribune of the people, Cola di Rienzi (1349). Fanatical as they were on the subject of poverty, they were, in accordance with ancient custom, sheltered by the Celestine monks in the near-by abbey of Santo Spirito. The origin of the orthodox Clareni, approved as true Franciscans by Sixtus IV in 1474, is unknown; nor is it clear whether they were followers of Angelo who kept aloof from heresy or, after falling into his error, retracted.

II.

The second main group of Fraticelli, chronologically considered, were the Spirituals who fled from Tuscany to Sicily, and were surnamed at first the Rebellious Brothers and Apostates, but later the Fraticelli de paupere vita. It is an error to apply the name Beghards to them. When, in 1309, the differences between the Relaxati and the Spirituals had reached a critical point, Clement V cited representatives of both parties to appear before the Curia with a view to adjusting their disputes. The result of this conference was the Constitution "Exivi de Paradiso", enacted at the final session of the Council of Vienne (6 May, 1312). This Constitution contained an explanation of the Rule of St. Francis along stricter lines than those of the Bull "Exiit qui seminat" of Nicholas III (14 August, 1279), and justified the Spirituals in various matters. This proceeding, however, only provoked the Relaxati superiors to take energetic measures against the Zelanti. Towards the end of 1312 a number of Tuscan Spirituals deserted their monasteries and took forcible possession of the monasteries of Carmignano (near Florence), Arezzo, and Asciano, putting the Relaxati to flight. About fifty, fearing punishment, fled to Sicily. Clement V, hearing of the insurrection, commanded the Archbishop of Genoa and two other bishops to force them to return to obedience under penalty of excommunication. As nearly all disregarded this mandate, the prior of San Fidele at Siena, who had been commissioned to execute it, declared them excommunicated and placed their monasteries under interdict (14 May, 1314). Being also prosecuted by the Archbishop of Florence, the rebels made a solemn protest against the violation of the rule on the part of the Community or Conventuals (7 July, 1313). As it soon became impossible for them to remain in Tuscany, they all fled to Sicily, where they were joined by numerous Zelanti from Northern Italy and Southern France. King Frederick of Sicily, brother of King James II of Aragon, admitted them after they had submitted their statutes to his inspection. Fra Enrico da Ceva was now their leader. On 23 January, 1318, Pope John XXII excommunicated them in the Bull "Gloriosam ecclesiam", specifying five errors, to wit: (1) they designated the Roman Church as carnal and corrupt, and themselves as spiritual; (2) they denied to the Roman priesthood all power and jurisdiction; (3) they forbade taking an oath; (4) they taught that priests in the state of sin could not confer the sacraments; and (5) they asserted that they alone were the true observers of the Gospel. At this time they had adopted a close fitting, short and filthy dress as their religious habit. John XXII (15 March, 1317) admonished King Frederick to take severe measures against them. In a letter of the same date addressed by the cardinals at Avignon to the entire hierarchy of Sicily, special stress was laid on the fact that the rebellious fugitives had elected a superior general, provincials, and guardians. Banished from Sicily, where, however, some remained till at least 1328, they established themselves securely in Naples. On 1 August, 1322, John XXII issued a general decree against them, and after sending King Robert (4 Feb., 1325) the Bulls specially directed against Ceva, on 10 May, 1325, demanded their imprisonment at the hands of King Robert and of Charles, Duke of Calabria. The pope had to repeat this admonition several times (1327, 1330, 1331) to proceed against the Fraticelli and had renewed (5 Dec., 1329) the injunction laid down in the Bull "Gloriosam Ecclesiam". From this time onward the adherents of Ceva are hardly to be distinguished from those of the following group; they joined the Michaelites and used the same methods of attack against the papacy. The statement that some professed Mohammedanism may be based on fact, considering their situation and the local circumstances.

III.

The third group of the Fraticelli are called the Michaelites, deriving their name from Michael of Cesena, their chief representative and natural leader. It must be premised that this name was in vogue during the fifteenth century and that the party it designated exerted great influence in doctrinal matters on the other groups as early as 1329. It is to be noted also that shortly after this period it becomes difficult to differentiate these groups with anything like precision. The "theoretical" controversy about poverty carried on in the Franciscan Order, or rather, carried on against John XXII, gave occasion to the formation of this group. It is called "theoretical" to distinguish it from the "practical" controversy waged by the Spirituals relative to the practice of Franciscan poverty which they wished to observe, whereas the leaders in the present conflict were former members of the Relaxati party and sworn enemies of the Spirituals (1309-22).

In 1321 the Dominican Inquisitor at Norbonne, John of Belna, declared heretical the teaching of an imprisoned Beghard of that region, who asserted that Christ and the Apostles owned nothing either individually or in common. The Franciscan lector, Bérenger Talon, defended the Beghard. As he refused to retract and was threatened with punishment by the inquisitor, Bérenger appealed to the pope. The matter soon developed into a general controversy between the Dominicans and Franciscans; among the latter, Relaxati and Zelanti alike supported Bérenger on the basis of the Bull of Nicholas III, "Exiit qui seminat". In that Bull Nicholas III had defined the poverty of the Franciscans, both individually and collectively, as equivalent to that of the Apostles, and had therefore transferred to the Roman Church all their holdings in land and houses, as had already been enacted by Innocent IV (14 Nov., 1245). The prohibition of Nicholas III to discuss this point was revoked by John XXII in a new Bull, "Quia nonnunquam" (26 March, 1322). On 6 March of the same year John XXII had submitted the matter to a consistory. The order was vigorously defended by the Cardinals Vitalis du Four and Bertrand de Turre (de la Tour), Archbishop Arnaldo Royardi of Salerno, and various other bishops, all Franciscans; other cardinals opposed their views, and the pope leaned towards the opposition. He also requested the opinion of Ubertino of Casale, a renowned Spiritual leader (1328), who, with a fine-spun distinction, declared (28 March, 1322) that Christ and the Apostles did possess property, inasmuch as they governed the Church, but not as individuals or as exemplars of Christian perfection. This distinction, more subtle than real, seemed satisfactory to both sides, when the provocative measures taken by the chapter of the order destroyed all prospects of peace. Fra Michael of Cesena, General of the Franciscan Order (elected 1316), a Conventual, as attested by various measures enacted by him with the approval of John XXII, convened a general chapter for 1 June, 1322, at Perugia. Anticipating, on the advice of the Franciscan Cardinals Vitalis and Bertrand, the definitive decision of the pope, the chapter solemnly declared in favour of the "absolute poverty" of Christ (4 June, 1322). This pronunciamento was signed by the general, Michael of Cesena, the provincial ministers of Southern Germany, England (William of Nottingham, not Occam), Aquitania, Northern France, and others, as well as by several renowned scholars. On 11 June the chapter solemnly published its decrees to all Christendom. Indignant at these proceedings, John XXII, in the Bull "Ad conditorem canonum" (8 December, 1322), declared that the Roman Church renounced all its claims to the movable and immovable properties of the Franciscan Order and therewith returned them. thus the pope revoked the Bull "Exiit" of Nicholas III and did away with the poverty which formed the basis of the Franciscan Order. It is easy to understand the effect of this upon the Franciscans, particularly the Zelanti. In the name of the order Fra Boncortese (Bonagrazia) of Bergamo, a capable lawyer and up to that time a bitter enemy of the Zelanti, presented a daring protest against this Bull to the Consistory (14 January, 1323). Although the pope thereupon revised the text of the Bull and reissued it under the original date, he incarcerated Bonagrazia and in the Bull "Cum inter nonnullos" (12 November, 1323) declared heretical the assertion that Christ and the Apostles possessed no property either separately or collectively.

The controversy between the pope and the order soon took on a political character, the Minorites having been appointed counsellors to Louis IV the Bavarian, King of Germany, who also was engaged in a conflict with the pope. After Louis IV (1314-47) had defeated his rival Frederick, Duke of Austria, at the battle of Mühldorf (18 Sept., 1322), and had invaded Lombardy to further the cause of the Ghibelline Visconti, John XXII ordered the whole question of right to the German throne to be brought before the papal tribunal and, on 8 October, 1323, began canonical proceedings against Louis. In the Nuremberg Appeal (18 Dec., 1323) Louis, curiously enough, had accused the pope of unduly favouring the Minorites, though this document was never published. But the Sachsenhausen Appeal of the same King Louis (22 May, 1324) was full of invectives against the "heretic who falsely designates himself Pope John XXII" for doing away with the poverty of Christ. This famous "Spiritualist excursus" is closely connected with the Appeal of Bonagrazia, and with writings of Ubertino of Casale and of Pietro di Giovanni Olivi. It is certain that it originated among the Franciscans who, under the protection of the king, aimed it at John XXII and his teaching, although Louis IV later denied all responsibility in the matter. The result was that Louis IV was excommunicated (11 July, 1324) and, in the decree "Quia quorundam" (10 Nov., 1324), John XXII forbade all contradiction and questioning of his constitutions "Cum inter nonnullos" and "Ad conditorem". The general chapter of the order, assembled at Lyons (20 May, 1325) under the presidency of Michael of Cesena, forbade any disrespectful reference to the pope. On 8 June, 1327, Michael received instructions to present himself at Avignon, a command which he obeyed (2 Dec., 1327). The pope having sharply reproved him in public (9 April, 1328) for the chapter's action at Perugia (1322), he drew up a secret protest (13 April) and, fearing punishment, fled, despite the orders of the pope, to Aigues-Mortes (28 May) and thence to Pisa, together with Bonagrazia of Bergamo and William of Occam. In the meanwhile other events of importance had occurred. Louis the Bavarian had entered Rome with a German army, to the great joy of the Ghibellines. Accompanying him were Ubertino of Casale, John of Jandum and Marsilius of Padua, the authors of the "Defensor pacis", which declared that the emperor and the Church at large were above the pope. Louis had himself solemnly crowned Emperor of Rome by Sciarra Colonna (17 Jan., 1328), and on 12 May he nominated and had consecrated as antipope Pietro Rainalducci of Corvara, a Franciscan, under the name of Nicholas V. The three fugitives from Avignon presented themselves to Louis and accompanied him to Bavaria, where they remained till their death. John XXII deposed Michael as general of the order (6 June, 1328) and (13 June) appointed the Minorite Cardinal Bertrand de Turre vicar-general of the order to preside at the chapter to be held in Paris (2 June, 1329), which Michael of Cesena vainly attempted to prevent, and brought about the election of Fra Gerardus Odonis of Châteauroux, of the province of Aquitaine. Obedient to John XXII, he induced the majority of the order to submit to the Apostolic See. Michael of Cesena and all his adherents, the Michaelites, were repudiated by the order. At the same time, by command of John XXII, papal proceedings were instituted against them everywhere. The Michaelites denied John's right to the papacy and denounced both him and his successors as heretics. This shows the dangerous character of the sect. In their numerous and passionate denunciations of the popes, especially of John XXII, they always single out for refutation isolated statements of John in his Bulls. To the contention regarding poverty was added (1333) the question of the beatific vision of the saints, concerning which John XXII, contrary to general opinion, yet without intending to define the matter, had declared that it would begin only at the last judgment.

During this period the antipope, Nicholas V, had nominated six cardinals (15 May, 1238), among them an Augustinian and a Dominican, and between September, 1328, and December, 1329, three other cardinals; also among the bishops whom he consecrated were members of the two orders mentioned above. After Louis IV had returned to Bavaria, Nicholas V, deprived of all support, took refuge with the Count of Donoratico. Finally, in his distress, Nicholas appealed to John XXII, cast himself at his feet (Avignon, 4 Aug.), and submitted to honourable confinement at Avignon, where he remained till his death (16 October, 1333).

John, meanwhile, had taken steps against Michael and his followers. In accordance with his instructions (20 June, 1328) to Aycardo, Archbishop of Milan, the proceedings against Michael were published in various localities. On 5 September, 1328, John XXII commanded the imprisonment of Fra Azzolino, who was acting as Michael's vicar, and on 18 August, 1331, the arrest of another vicar, Fra Thedino, who represented Michael in the March of Ancona. Prominent among the followers of Michael were the more or less numerous Minorites in the monasteries of Todi and Amelia (against whom proceedings were instituted in 1329-30), of Cortona (1329), and of Pisa (1330), where, however, they appeared openly as late as 1354, and at Albigano, and Savonna (1329-32).

On 21 Dec., 1328, John XXII graciously pardoned Fra Minus, the Provincial of Tuscany, while on 2 Dec., he had ordered the trial of Fra Humilis, Custodian of Umbria. Papal decrees reveal the presence of Michaelites in England (1329), Germany (1322), Carcassone, Portugal (1330), Spain (1329), Sicily and Lombardy (1329, 1334), Sardinia, Armenia, and other places. John XXII and his immediate successors also issued numerous decrees against the Fraticelli in the March of Ancona, where the bishops and minor feudal barons defended them stubbornly and succesfully in spite of papal threats; also in Naples and Calabria, where King Robert and Queen Sanzia exhibited special veneration for St. Francis and his humble followers. In the royal castle, where the chaplaincies were held by Franciscans, there resided Fra Philip of Majorca, a brother of the queen. This Philip had (1328) petitioned John XXII for permission for himself and other Franciscans to observe literally the Rule of St. Francis, independently of the superiors of the order; the pope of course refused. In a letter dated 10 August, 1333, the pope was obliged to settle some doubts of the queen relating to the observance of "holy poverty", and the king had even composed a treatise favouring the views of the Chapter of Perugia (1322). The papal condemnations of the Fraticelli, therefore, had produced but slight results in the Kingdom of Naples. On 8 July, 1331, the pope admonished King Robert to withhold no longer the papal decrees against Michael of Cesena nor prevent their publication in his kingdom. Philip of Majorca, however, preached openly against the pope. It was due to the influence of the royal family that Fra Andrea of Galiano, a court chaplain at Naples, was acquitted in the process instituted against him at Avignon in 1338, as he still continued his intercourse with Michael of Cesena and with the fifty Michaelites who resided for some time under the king's protection in the castle of Lettere near Castellamare, but who later (1235) humbly submitted to their lawful superiors. In 1336 "short-robed" Fraticelli still occupied the monastery of Santa Chiara at Naples, founded by Queen Sanzia, and were established in other parts of the kingdom; their expulsion was demanded (24 June, 1336) by Benedict XII (1334-42). In 1344 Clement VI (1342-52) found it necessary to reiterate the earlier decrees. Between 1363-1370 it at last became possible for Franciscans to take possession of several monasteries in Calabria and Sicily from which the Fraticelli had been expelled; but Gregory XI complains (12 Sept., 1372) that the "ashes and bones of Fraticelli were venerated as relics of saints in Sicily, and churches were even erected in their honour".

From the records of a process (1334) conducted in irregular form against the Fraticelli of the Franciscan monastery at Tauris, who had been reported by Dominicans, we learn that they inveighed openly against John XXII and upheld the views of Michael of Cesena, although in their apocalyptic manner they declared that the order of the Friars Minor was divided in three parts, and that only those would be saved who would journey to the East, i. e. themselves. It is uncertain whether these were identical with the Fraticelli in Armenia, Persia, and other oriental localities, where all bishops were commanded by Clement VI to prosecute them (29 May, 1344).

For a long time the sect prospered exceedingly in the Duchy of Spoleto on account of the continual political turmoil. In a process instituted against a particular Umbrian group of Fraticelli in 1360, we are informed that Fra Francesco Niccolò of Perugia was their founder. They pretended to observe the Rule of St. Augustine, but were fanatical on the question of poverty and regarded all prelates as guilty of simony. Salvation was to be found only in their, supposedly perfect, order. They imitated the Sicilian Fraticelli in their doctrines and methods of instruction. An interesting letter is still extant which the Fraticelli of the Campagna (1353-55) wrote to the magistrates of Narni when they heard that one of their number (Fra Stefano) had been cruelly imprisoned by the Inquisition of that city twelve or fifteen years before. In this letter they petitioned the magistrates to liberate him according to the example of the cities of "Todi, Perugia, Assisi, and Pisa".

The Fraticelli enjoyed complete liberty in Perugia. They lived where it best suited them, principally in the country-houses of the rich. They became so bold as to publicly insult the Minorites (Conventuals) in the monastery of San Francesco al Prato. It appears that these Fraticelli had elected their own popes, bishops and generals, and that they were split into various factions. The Conventuals, as their one means of defence, called in Fra Paoluccio of Trinci, the founder of the Observants, and ceded to him the small monastery on Monte Ripido near the city (1374). Fra Paoluccio was successful in his disputations with the Fraticelli, and when they had been clearly exposed as heretics, the people drove them from the city. It should be noted that these Fraticelli, and probably all the others of that period, were designated Fraticelli della opinione, perhaps on account of their opinion that the Roman papacy had ceased to exist with John XXII (1323) or Celestin V, and that they alone constituted the true Church. About this time Fra Vitale di Francia and Fra Pietro da Firenze exercised a sort of generalship over the Fraticelli. They received protection and hospitality from rich and influential families in Apulia, around Rome, and in the March. One of their protectors was the kinght Andreuccio de Palumbario, who sheltered them in his castle near Rieti, for which he was sharply called to account by Urban VI (4 May, 1388). On the same day the Benedictine Abbot of Farfa was reprimanded for a similar fault. On 14 November, 1394, Boniface IX empowered the Minorites of Terra di Lavoro to take possession of the monasteries deserted by the Fraticelli. Martin V conceded the same rights to the Franciscans of the Roman Province (14 November, 1418) and, on 7 April, 1426, transferred to them as a special grant the monastery of Palestrina, which had been a stronghold of the Fraticelli. In the same year Martin V nominated St. John Capistran (27 May) and St. James of the March (11 October) as inquisitors general to take action against the Fraticelli. These promoters of order among the Franciscans fulfilled the duties of their office strictly and energetically and succeeded in striking at the very vitals of the sect. In 1415 the city of Florence had formally banished the "Fraticelli of the poor life, the followers of Michelino of Cesena of infamous memory", and in Lucca five Fraticelli, on trial, had solemnly abjured their error (1411). Martin V also ordered the Bishops of Porto and Alba to take steps against all Fraticelli "in the Roman province, the March of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoleto and other localities" (7 June, 1427). On 27 January of the same year, Martin V had permitted the Observants of Ancona to occupy the monastery of the Fraticelli at Castro l'Ermita as a first step in the campaign against the Fraticelli of that neighbourhood. On 1 June, 1428, he commanded the Bishop of Ancona to enforce his rulings strictly in Maiolati, to put all suspects to the rack, destroy their village, separate the children from heretical parents, and disperse the elder population. A circular letter, which the Fraticelli addressed to all Christiandom, proved ineffectual and their doom was sealed. John of Capistrano and James of the March burned thirty-six of their establishments or dispersed the members and a number were burned at the stake at Florence and Fabriano, at the latter place in the presence of the pope. St. James of March, commissioned by Nicholas V to proceed against them (1449), wrote the famous "Dialogus contra Fraticellos", which he first published in 1452, making some additions to it later on. According to this the main establishments of the Fraticelli were situated in the valley of Jesi, at Maiolati, Poggio Cupo, Massaccia, and Mergo. They had also constituted bishops in other districts where there were a sufficient number of adherents. They made frequent journeys for propaganda purposes, especially in Tuscany. Some dressed partly as Minorites, some as hermits, often disguising themselves for the sake of protection. Their doctrine was a résumé of their former sectarian errors: the whole Roman Church had deserted the true Faith since the time of John XXII (1323); they alone constituted the true Church and retained the sacraments and the priesthood.

A form of Fraticelli was also represented by Philip of Berbegni, a fanatical and eccentric Observant of Spain (1433), who attempted to establish a strict society de la Capuciola, but met vigorous opposition from John Capistran, who issued a dissertation against him.

Only once again are measures known to have been taken against the Fraticelli, viz., in 1466, when a number of Fraticelli from Poli, near Palestrina, and Maiolati were captured at Assisi during the Portiuncula celebration. They were imprisoned in the castle of Sant' Angelo and proceedings instituted against them. Their protector at Poli, Count Stefano de' Conti, was imprisoned, but they also received the protection of the Colonna family of Palestrina. Tradition also mentions that the Fraticelli established many other colonies and that they had an important centre in Greece, whence they sent out emissaries and where they sought refuge from the aggressive measures of St. James of the March. They generally held their reunions at night in private houses and half of the inhabitants of Poli are said to have been among their adherents. The allegation that their religious services were defiled by immoral practices cannot be proved. According to their doctrine, as contained in the "Dialogus", immoral priests incurred the loss of the powers of order and jurisdiction. They had also their own bishop, Nicholas by name.

During this period numerous pamphlets were published controverting the errors of the Fraticelli. While the campaign was going on at Rome, information was brought concerning another sect similar to the Fraticelli, which had been discovered in Germany; but though these visionaries, led by Brothers Johann and Livin of Wirsberg, found adherents among the Mendicants in Bohemia and Franconia, they cannot be considered as Fraticelli. In spite of all persecutions, remnants of the original Fraticelli still survived, but their strength was crippled and they thenceforth constituted no serious danger to the Roman Church. The foregoing sketch sufficiently proves that these heretics were not members of the Order of St. Francis, but rather that they had been expelled from the order and from the Church. The order as such and in the great majority of its members remained faithful to the Church in spite of the fact that many prominent monks and even whole sections fell away.

The best source for the general history of the Fraticelli is Ehrle in Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, III (Berlin, 1887), 553-614; IV (Freiburg, 1888), 1-201; I (Berlin, 1885), 509-70, 154-165; II (Berlin, 1886), 108-64, 249-336, 353-416, 653-69; III (Berlin, 1887), 1-195, 540-52. Eubel, Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome), V (1898), VI (1902), VII (1904); Wadding, Annales Minorum, ad ann. 1320-34 (2nd ed., Rome, 1733); Baluze, Miscellanea (2nd ed., 7 vols., Paris, 1678-1715; 4 vols., Lucca, 1761-64); Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi), II (1887), 120 sqq.; III (1897), 474 sqq.; MÜller, Der Kampf Ludwigs des Bayern mit der römischen Kurie (2 vols., Tübingen, 1879-80); Riezler, Die literarischen Widermacher der Päpste zur Zeit Ludwigs des Bayers (Leipzig, 1874); Marcour, Anteil der Minoriten am Kampfe zwischen K. Ludwig IV. von Bayern und Papst Johann XXII bis zum Jahre 1328 (Emmerich, 1874); Preger, Der kirchenpolitische Kampf unter Ludwig dem Bayern (Munich, 1877); Schreiber, Die politischen und religiosen Doktrinen unter Ludwig dem Bayer (Landshut, 1858); Felten, Die Bulle: Ne prætereat, und die Rekonziliensverhandlungen Ludwigs des Bayern (2 vols., Trier, 1885-87); Idem, Forschungen zur Geschichte Ludwigs des Bayern (Neuss, 1900); Riezler, Vatikanische Akten zur deutschen Geschichte in der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern (Innsbruck, 1891); Schwalm, Die Appellation König Ludwigs des Baiern von 1324 (Weimar, 1906); for further German bibliography see Dahlmann- Waite, Quellenkunde der deutschen Gesch. (7th ed., Leipzig, 1906), n. 4421 sqq., 4499-4529. Tocco, Un codice della Marciana di Venezia sulla questione della povertà (Venice, 1886-87); Idem, L'eresia nel medio evo (Florence, 1884); Idem, Un processo contro Luigi di Durazzo in Archivio storico per le provincie Napoletane, XII (Naples, 1887); Idem, I Fraticelli o poveri Eremeti di Celestino, secondo imuori documenti in Bolletino della società di storia patria … negli Abruzzi, XIV (Aquila, 1895), 117-760, XII, 95-105; Idem, Nuovi documenti sui dissidii francescani in Accademia dei Lincei, Scienze mor. stor. e filol., ser. V, vol X (Rome, 1901), 3-20; Idem, L'eresia dei Fraticelli e una lettera inedita del b. Giovanni dalle Celle, ibid., XV (Rome, 1906), 1-19, 109-80; Idem, Fraticelli in Archivio storico italiano, ser. V, vol. XXXV (Florence, 1905), 332-68; Davidson, Un libro di entrate e spese dell' inquisitore fiorentino (1322-29), ibid., ser. V, vol. XXVII (Florence, 1901), 346-55; Savini, Sui Flagellanti, sui Fraticelli e sui bizocchi nel Teramano, ibid., ser. V, vol. XXXV (Florence, 1905), 82-91 (without value); Zambrini, Storia di Fra Michele Minorita come fu arso in Firenze nel 1389 con documenti risguardanti Fraticelli della povera vita (Bologna, 1864); Fumi, Eretici e ribelli nell' Umbria dal 1220 al 1330 studiati su documenti inediti dell' archivio segreto vaticano in Bolletino della reale deputazione di storia patria per l'Umbria, III (Perugia, 1897), 257-82, 429-89; IV (1898), 221-301, 437-86; V (1890), 1-46, 205-425; Idem, Una epistola dei "Poverelli di Cristo" al commune di Narni, ibid., VII (Perugia, 1901), 353-69; Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages (New York, 1888), III; Pastor, Gesch. der Päpste im Zeitalter der Renaissance, II (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1894), 360 sqq.; Finke, Acta Pragonensia (2 vols., Berlin, 1908); Tocco, Studi Francescani, I (Naples, 1909); Holzapfel, Handbuch der Geschichte des Franziskanerordens (Freiburg im Br., 1909), 56 sqq., tr. Lat., ibid. (1909), 50 sqq.; Liv. Oliger in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, I (Puaracchi, 1908), 617 sqq.; Bihl, ibid., II (1909), 137 sqq., 158 sqq.

Michael Bihl

Fraud

In the common acceptation of the word, an act or course of deception deliberately practised with the view of gaining a wrong and unfair advantage. Its connotation is less wide than that of deceit, which is used of concealment or perversion of the truth for the purpose of misleading. Stratagems employed in war to deceive the enemy are not morally wrong; yet even in war it would not be right to practise fraud on him. Fraud is something which militates not only against sincerity and straightforward conduct, but against justice, and justice is due even to enemies.

The question of fraud is of special importance in the matter of contracts. It is of the essence of a contract that there should be an agreement of wills between the parties as to its subject-matter. Without such an agreement in all that is essential there can be no contract. Hence, if by fraud one of the parties to a contract has been led into a mistake about what belongs to its substance, the contract will be null and void. If a dealer in jewellery offers a piece of coloured glass to a customer as a valuable ruby, and induces him to pay a Iarge sum of money for it, the contract is for the want of consent. The customer wished to buy a precious stone, and he was offered glass. If one of the parties to a contract is fraudulently led into a mistake about something which is merely accidental to the contract and which did not induce him to enter into it, the contract will be valid and there is no reason for setting it aside. If a higher price or more favourable terms were obtained by means of the fraud, there was, of course, wrong done thereby, and if, in consequence, more than the just value was given, there will be an obligation to make restitution for the injustice. But there was no mistake about the substance of the contract, there was union of wills therein, and so, there is no reason why it should not stand. If, however, such a mistake, not indeed regarding the substance of the contract, but caused by the fraud of the other party was the reason why the contract was entered into there are special reasons why such a contract should not be upheld. As there was agreement about the substance of the contract, this will, indeed, be valid, but inasmuch as the consent of the party who was deceived was obtained by fraud and would not otherwise have been given, the contract should be voidable at the option of the party deceived. It is a matter of importance for the public weal that no one should be able to reap benefit from fraud (Nemini fraus sua patrocinari debet), as canonists and moralists never tire of repeating, Moreover, the fraudulent party inflicted an injury on the other by inducing him by fraud to do what he would not have done otherwise. It is only equitable and right that one who has thus suffered should be able to rescind the contract and put himself again in the same position as he was in before -- if that be possible. Contracts, therefore, induced by the fraud of one of the parties, eaten though there was no substantial mistake, are voidable at the option of him who was deceived, if the contract can be annulled. If the fraud was committed by a third person without the connivance of the other party to the contract, there will be no reason for annulling it.

Besides fraud committed against a person and against justice, canonists and moral theologians frequently mention fraud against law. One is said to act in fraud of the law when he is careful to observe the letter, but violates the spirit of it and the intention of the lawgiver. Thus one who is bound to fast would act in fraud of the Church's law if on a fasting day he undertook some hard and unnecessary work, such as digging, in order to be excused from fasting. On the other hand, there is no fraud against the law committed by one who leaves the territory within which the law binds even if he do this with tne intention freeing himself from the law. He is at liberty to go and live where he pleases, and he cannot act fraudulently in doing what he has a right to do . And so, on a fast day which is only kept in some particular diocese, one who lives in the diocese may without sin leave it even with the intention of escaping from the obligation of fasting, and when he is once outside the limits of the diocese he is no longer bound by a purely diocesan law. There are two celebrated declarations of the Holy See which seem at first sight to contradict this doctrine. The first occurs in the Bull "Superna" of Clement X (21 June, 1670), where the pope says that a regular confessor may absolve strangers who come to him from another diocese from sins reserved therein unless he knows that they have come to him in fraud of the reservation. These words have caused great difficulty and have been variously interpreted by canonists and divines.

According to the common opinion they limit the power of the confessor only when the principal motive which induced the penitent to leave his diocese was to avoid the jurisdiction of his own pastor and to make his confession in a place where the sin not reserved. By reserving the sin in question the ecclesiastical authority desired to compel a delinquent to appear before it and to receive the necessary correction; by leaving the diocese with a view to making his confession elsewhere the penitent would circumvent the law and make it nugatory. If he left the diocese from some other motive, and while outside took the opportunity to make his confession, he would not act in fraud of the law of reservation. Urban VIII (14 Aug. 1627) approved of a declaration of the Sacred Congregation of the Council according to which parties subject to the Tridentine law of clandestinity would not contract a valid marriage in a place where that law was not in force if they betook themselves thither with fraud. There was a similar difficulty as to the meaning of fraud in this decree. According to the more common view, the parties were guilty of fraud by the very fact of leaving the parish with the intention of contracting marriage without the assistance of the parish priest, whose right and duty it was to testify to the valid celebration of marriage of his parishineers. This question, however, is now only of historical interest, as the law has been radically changed by the papal decree "Ne temere" (2 Aug., 1907) q.v.

T. SLATER

Joseph von Fraunhofer

Optician, b. at Straubing, Bavaria, 6 March, 1787; d. at Munich, 7 June, 1826. He was the tenth and last son of a poor glass-grinder who was unable to give his boy even the rudiments of knowledge. At the age of twelve he lost both parents and was apprenticed to a mirror-maker and lens-grinder for six years without pay. There he was not permitted to study or even to attend holiday school. The house where he worked collapsed in 1801, burying the boy under the ruins, but not injuring him fatally. This fortunate accident brought him to the notice of court-councillor von Utzschneider, who gave him books on mathematics and optics, and also interested King Max Joseph in him, who made him a present of eighteen ducats. With this money Joseph acquired a grinding-machine and bought his release from the obnoxious apprenticeship. He tried to earn a living at his trade and also as an engraver on metal. Finally, in 1806, he was called to the mathematico-technical institute of Reichenbach, Utzschneider, and Liebherr as an assistant. There he did such excellent work that he became a partner and manager of the optical institute of the firm at Benediktbeuern. In 1814 Utzschneider gave him 10,000 florins and formed with him the new firm of Utzschneider and Fraunhofer. The optical institute was moved to Munich in 1819 and Fraunhofer was appointed professor royal. The University of Erlangen gave him the degree of Ph.D., honoris causâ in 1822. The following year he was appointed conservator of the physical cabinet of the academy at Munich. Nobility, the order of merit, and the honorary citizenship of Munich were conferred upon him in 1824. The Imperial Leopoldina Academy, the Astronomical Society of London, and the Society for Natural Science and Medicine of Heidelberg elected him to membership. Shortly before his death he was made a Knight of the Danish order of Danebrog.

The work of this self-taught mathematical and practical optician was chiefly in developing improved methods of preparing optical glass, of grinding and polishing lenses, and of testing them. His success deprived England of its supremacy in the optical field. He invented the necessary machines, constructed a spherometer, and developed the moving and measuring devices used in astronomical telescopes, such as the screw micrometer and the heliometer. His fame, however, rests above above all on his initiation of spectrum analysis. While studying the chromatic refraction of different glasses he discovered the banded spectra of artificial lights and also the dark lines in the solar spectrum, called now the Fraunhofer lines. He also accomplished an important theoretical work on diffraction and established its laws; he placed the diffraction slit in front of the objective of a measuring telescope and later made and used diffraction gratings with up to 10,000 parallel lines to the inch, ruled by a specially constructed dividing engine. By means of these gratings he was able to measure the minute wave-lengths of the different colours of light. As a Christian, Fraunhofer was faithful and observant even in details. The simple inscription on his tomb reads: Approximaverit sidera. His important memoirs were first published in "Denkschriften" of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, the one on refraction, spectra, and lines in 1817, and that on diffraction and its laws in 1821. They were soon translated into English and French. His collected works have been published by Lommel (Munich, 1888), and translated in part and edited by Ames (New York and London, 1898).

Sketch of Dr. Jos. Fraunhofer in Pop. Science Monthly, VI, 739; Memoir in Jr. Fr. Institute, VIII, 96; MERZ, Das Leben und Wirken, (Landshut, 1865); BAUERNFEIND, Gedächtnissrede auf F. (Munich, 1887).

WILLIAM FOX

Denis de Frayssinous

1765-1841, Bishop of Hermopolis in partibus infidelium, is celebrated chiefly for his conferences at Notre-Dame de Paris. He was one of the first orators and apostles who accomplished so much towards the restoration of the Faith in France after the Revolution. He was born at Curieres in Rouergue, France, and died at St-Geniez in the department of Aveyron. His earliest sermons were delivered at Paris, first in the church of the Carmelites, and later at Saint-Sulpice, where he continued them for seven years. He was compelled to interrupt his preaching at the order of Napoleon in 1809, but resumed in 1814, and continued, with the brief interruption of the Hundred Days, until 1822. Despite his severity towards the preacher, Napoleon esteemed the Abbe Frayssinous and had made him a councillor of the university, of which he later became grand master. He was elected to membership in the French Academy, and in 1817 pronounced there a panegyric of St. Louis which is still famous. In 1817 he was named almoner to the court of Louis XVIII, and later consecrated Bishop of Hermopolis. He had been raised to the French peerage when, in 1824, he pronounced the funeral oration of Louis XVIII. It was at this time that the Society of Jesus, which had been re-established by Pius VII, wished to return to France. A number of former Jesuits, reunited under the name of Fathers of the Faith, addressed themselves, in 1824, to Mgr de Frayssinous, the minister of public worship, and obtained his protection of their project.

His political career came to an end with the revolution of 1830. After acting as tutor to the Duc de Bordeaux until 1838, he went to live at St-Geniez in Provence, where he died three years later. His conferences had been published some years before, and form, under the title "Défense du Christianisme" (4 vols.), the chief work by which he is known. He published also, in 1818, his slightly Gallican work "Les vrais principes sur les libertés de l'Eglise gallicane". His conferences lack the vibrating warmth and the brilliancy of style which marked those of Lacordaire and his successors in the pulpit of Notre-Dame. But Mgr de Frayssinous possesses the distinction of having inaugurated a great movement of restoration and of having made the word of God acceptable to both the indifferent and the incredulous, owing to the clearness with which he explained dogmatic truths, his judgment in the choice of his proofs and his loyalty in discussion. He was the first in the nineteenth century to sow, in this manner, the apostolic seed, and he assured an abundant harvest to those who followed him.

LOUIS LALANDE

Louis-Honoré Fréchette

Born at Notre-Dame de Lévis, P.Q., Canada, 16 November, 1839; died 30 May, 1908. He attended the schools of his native town, and completed his studies at the Seminary of Nicolet, after which he chose the profession of law, and in 1864 was admitted to the Bar at Quebec. As clients did not come as quickly as he desired he decided to go to Chicago, where for seven years he worked as a journalist, and became corresponding secretary of the land department of the Illinois Central Railroad. In 1871 Fréchette returned to Canada, and in 1874 was elected a deputy in the House of Commons by the Liberal party. Defeated in the general elections of 1878 and 1882, he abandoned public life and returned to journalism, the products of his pen appearing in the "Journal de Québec", the "Journal de Lévis", the "Patrie" of Montreal, the "Opinion Publique", "The Forum", "Harper's Monthly", and "The Arena". Meanwhile his poetry won him fame abroad and admiration at home. The list of his poetical works is somewhat lengthy. The following are given in their chronological order: "Mes Loisirs", 1863: "La Voix d'un Exilé", 1866 — first part published at Chicago. Another complete edition appeared at Montreal in 1874. "Pêle-Mêle; Fantaisies et souvenirs poétiques", 1877; "Les Fleurs Boréales, and Les Oiseaux de Neige, Poésies Canadiennes", a work crowned by the French Academy, 1879; "La Légende d'un Peuple — Poésies Canadiennes", 1887-1890; "Les Feuilles Volantes", 1891. Fréchette wrote also much in prose, notably: "Félix Poutré" (an historical drama), 1871; "Lettres à Basile à propos des causeries du Dimanche", 1872; "Le retour de l'Exilé" (a drama in five acts and eight tableaux), 1880; "Le drapeau fantôme" (historical episode), 1884; "Episode de l'insurrection Canadienne de 1837", 1885; "Originaux et Détraqués", 1892; "Lettres à l'abbé Baillargé sur l'éducation", 1893; "Christmas in French Canada" (in English), 1900. He translated into French, Howell's "Chance Acquaintance" and George W. Cable's "Old Creole Days". Fréchette became a member of the Royal Society of Canada at its foundation in 1882; he was named Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George in 1897, on the occasion of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria. The University of Laval, McGill University, and Queen's University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Letters. From 1889 Fréchette occupied the position of clerk of the Council in the legislature of Quebec. In 1876 he married Emma Beaudry, second daughter of J.-B. Beaudry, a banker of Montreal, by whom he had two children. He has been called the "Lamartine of Canada". He certainly elevated the poetry of Canada, and his work will rank with that of Crémazie.

N.E. DIONNE

Fredegarius

The name used since the sixteenth designate the supposed author of an anonymous historical compilation (Chronicon Fredegarii) of the seventh century, in which is related the history of the Franks from the earliest times until 658. The name appeared for the first time in the "Antiquités gauloises" (Paris, 1599) of Claude Fauchet, who states that it is used "through ignorance of the real author." Modern research has resulted in the discovery that the work is really made up of three texts each of which belongs to a different author. The first author is a Burgundian whose work is an epitome of six books of the "Ecclesiastical History of the Franks", by Gregory of Tours, from the earliest times to the death of Chilperic I in 584. He also wrote the "Liber generationis" and made extracts from Idatius and St. Jerome which form, in the critical edition of Krusch, the first and second books of the "Chronicon". Including the epitome, or the third book, he has therefore written the largest portion of the work. This portion, it must be said, is also the least important, for it contains no original matter, and confines itself to the use of previous sources, and not without blunders and inaccuracies. It is true that the part of the fourth book which goes to 613 (Krusch), or even to 616 (Schnürer), has been attributed to the same author. The latter remarks that the writer was in touch with Warnacharius the "mayor of the palace" and believes that he may be identified with Agrestius, a monk of Luxeuil. The second author, also a Burgundian, belonged to the south of France and had apparently spent some time at Paris. He wrote an original work extending to the year 642 and containing information which is valuable because not to be found elsewhere. He is an impartial and veracious author whose testimony deserves to be received in general with great confidence. The third author, who brings the "Chronicon" to a conclusion, is a partisan of Grimoald, the "mayor of the palace" and a great admirer of the Carlovingian family. Chapters 84 to 88 and several interpolations are his. These rather important conclusions have been reached in recent times by the critical acumen of B. Krusch. Several points have been more precisely defined by G. Schnürer, and their opinions taken together may be considered definitive, although the last word on the subject has not been said. Interest in the "Chronicon" of Fredegarius consists for us in the fact that it is the sole document which informs us in a continuous way concerning that period in the history of the Franks-which goes from 591 (the year in which the "Ecclesiastical History" of Gregory of Tours comes to a close) to 658. Apart from this work we have almost no knowledge of the period of Frankish history covered by it. All three writers exhibit, it is true, much barbarism in diction and in thought; we are all the more indebted to them for the serious effort they made to preserve some memory of the events of their times. The "Chronicon" if Fredegarius was edited by B. Krusch in "Scriptores Rer. Merovingicarum", II (Hanover, 1888).

GODEFROID KURTH

Fredegis of Tours

(Fridugisus or Fredegisus).

A ninth-century monk, teacher, and writer. Fredegis was an Anglo-Saxon, born in England towards the end of the eighth century; died at Tours in 834. He was a pupil of Alcuin, first at York and afterwards at the court of Charlemagne. The proximate date of his birth is determined by a reference to him as "a boy" (puer) in a letter of Alcuin dated 798. He was a favourite pupil of Alcuin and was one of the group of distinguished scholars who formed the Schola palatina, in which he was known by the name Nathaniel. At that time he was a deacon. When, in 796, Alcuin became Abbot of Tours Fredegis seems to have remained at the court. According to some authorities he was Alcuin's successor as Master of the Palace School. This is, however, improbable. In 804 he succeeded his teacher as Abbot of Tours, retaining at the same time his relations with the emperor. Among his contemporaries he enjoyed a reputation for great learning. He composed several poems and a short treatise in epistolary form, which deals with the nature of nothing and darkness, "De nihilo et tenebris". The epistle was written probably during the author's residence at Tours. It is addressed "to all the faithful and to those who dwell in the sacred Palace of the most serene prince Charles".

The occasion of the discussion of a problem which to the modern mind seems childish, namely, Are nothing and darkness real things? was doubtless the Biblical use of the words in the first chapter of Genesis. If the Bible uses the words nothing and darkness, it seemed in that naively realistic age that there must be things corresponding to those words. Fredegis accepts the realistic answer and defends it both by arguments from authority and by arguments from reason. That his solution, however, was not generally accepted is clear from the opening words of the treatise, in which he refers to the long prevailing divergence of opinion in the matter. The importance of the treatise lies in the use which it makes of the dialectical method which was afterwards developed into the scholastic method by Abelard, Alexander of Hales, and St. Thomas.

WILLIAM TURNER

Frederick I (Barbarossa)

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Frederick of Swabia (d. 1147) and Judith, daughter of Henry the Black; born c. 1123; died 10 June, 1190. Connected maternally with the Guelphs, he seemed destined to effect a reconciliation between them and the Ghibellines. In 1146 he had already roused public attention by a determined and victorious war against Duke Conrad of Zähringen. On 4 March, 1152, after having been designated by Conrad III as his successor, he was elected German king, unopposed, and crowned at Aachen on 9 March. Taking Charles the Great as his ideal of a German emperor, Frederick determined to expand his supremacy to its utmost limits. This explains his ecclesiastical policy. With astonishing firmness his bold spirit pursued the aims it had once marked out for itself. Though no scholar, Frederick surprises us by the clearness and cleverness of his speech, by his rapid comprehension and decision, and by his well-reasoned and logical policy. A born ruler, he considered it his duty to secure for his subjects the blessings of peace. The majesty of his personal appearance was combined with attractive kindliness. Though shrewd and calculating, he had at times fits of uncontrolled passion. However, he was sufficiently master of himself to restrain his anger if the object to be attained was endangered by an outburst. Such a man naturally excited the admiration and invited the confidence of his fellow-men.

The sense of national unity that grew out of the rivalries existing in the crusading armies found in him an ideal for its enthusiasm. In public opinion Frederick found the support which was lacking to his predecessors, Lothair and Conrad. The German people loved their king, who soon after his coronation visited the various parts of his realm and manfully exerted himself to establish internal peace. There was no reason why the secular princes of his empire should oppose the newly chosen king; his naturally conservative mind knew how to deal with existing forces. Of the princes, whose power was already approaching sovereignty, he demanded only respect for the existing order. He sought also to unite the interests of the German princes, especially those of the House of Guelph with the interests of the empire. The Gregorian, hierarchical party in Germany was in a state of complete dissolution. From the bishops Frederick had no reason to fear radical opposition to his policy towards the Church, dissatisfaction with the papal administration in Germany being then widespread. He succeeded in recovering the influence formerly exercised by the German king in the selection of bishops. Many powerful men were at that time to be found among the German clergy, prominent among them being the provost of Hildesheim, Rainald von Dassel, consecrated Archbishop of Cologne in May, 1156, and made chancellor of the empire. For eleven years he was the most faithful counsellor of Frederick. Rainald was a formidable opponent of the papacy; in him the bishop almost wholly disappears in the statesman. Similar to Frederick in character, he vigorously supported the anti-hierarchical policy of the emperor. Another prelate, also a stanch supporter of the king, was Wichmann, Archbishop of Magdeburg, more of a soldier than a bishop, and uncanonically promoted from the See of Zeitz to the Archbishopric of Magdeburg. Thus assisted by the various estates of the empire, Frederick sought to make the power of the crown as independent as possible. This he did by vigorously furthering the interests of his ancestral house. The administrators of his family property, the ministeriales, were not only managers of great estates, but at the same time an ever-ready body of warriors. The negotiations between the king and the pope concerning the appointment to the See of Magdeburg revealed for the first time a radical difference between the policies of the Church and the State. During these stormy controversies, forerunners of the approaching tempest, Frederick was strengthened in his views regarding the superiority of the royal over the papal power, chiefly through intercourse with the leading jurists of the University of Bologna. The conception of the dignity of the Roman emperor placed before him by these men confirmed him in his claims to the supremacy of the German kings over the Church, which he based upon the rights exercised by them during the Carlovingian period. The whole internal and external policy of Frederick was controlled by the idea of restoring the ancient imperium mundi. In Northern Italy, where many prosperous communes had acquired independence, the former imperial suzerainty had passed away. Frederick failed to see that in these cities a new political factor was developing, and underrated the powers of resistance of these free municipal republics. Concerned only with immediate advantages, he sought to recover the regalia (income from vacant sees and benefices), which the cities had gradually usurped, and to utilize them in persuing his imperial policy. The conduct of Frederick in Northern Italy and the mistaken concept of the relations between Church and State could not fail to bring about a conflict with the papacy. In this conflict for supremacy in Northern Italy, the pope was forced to prove that he was able to defend the position of equality with the king, which the papal see had acquired, and in this way to gain a complete victory over the emperor. The king, a deeply religious man, was, indeed, convinced that the secular and ecclesiastical power should co-operate with each other, but he made it clear that even the pope should respect in him the imperial lord. If Frederick became master of Italy, the pope would have to acknowledge this supremacy. In the beginning, it seemed probable that Frederick would triumph. The pope needed German help. Threatened by the Normans from without, he was not even secure in his own city, which governed itself through a senate elected by popular vote and tolerated the revolutionary Arnold of Brescia within its walls. It was in these circumstances that the Treaty of Constance was signed between the pope and the king (March, 1153). This treaty was aimed against the enemies of the pope both in Rome and Southern Italy. In return the pope promised to crown Frederick emperor and to help him against his enemies.

In October, 1154, Frederick began his march Romewards. Owing to the weakness of his army, the king did not succeed at this time in subjecting to his power Northern Italy and the rebellious city of Milan. In 1155 he went on with his army to Rome, where he met the newly elected Pope Adrian IV, who maintained himself in Rome with difficulty and was anxiously awaiting the arrival of the German king. Frederick could not establish permanent order in Rome. The Treaty of Constance, promising the pope help against the Romans and Normans, was therefore not carried out. In On 18 June, 1155, after having delivered Arnold of Brescia into the pope's hands, Frederick was crowned as Roman emperor in spite of the opposition of the rebellious Romans. In Southern, as in Northern, Italy Frederick made little progress during this Italian expedition. During the years 1155-1158, Frederick reached the height of his power, and energetically safeguarded the tranquillity of his realm. The difficult Bavarian question, replete with imminent danger of war, was successfully settled; Henry Jasomirgott surrendered Bavaria to Henry the Lion and in return received Austria as an independent duchy, a step that was pregnant with consequences for the future of Germany. Frederick's policy was also successful along the eastern and western boundaries of his empire. His suzerainty in Burgundy was, in the main, re-established, after Frederick, with the consent of the Curia, had separated from Adela von Bohburg, and married Beatrice, the heiress of Burgundy. On his eastern frontier, he succeeded more and more in Germanizing and Christianizing the local tribes. In this respect, Henry the Lion was the chief pioneer of the future imperial policy. Frederick maintained amicable relations with Denmark, Poland, and Hungary. Impelled by his proud consciousness of authority, which found expression at the Diet of Würzburg (1157), Frederick undertook a second Italian campaign in 1158. In the meantime, conditions had changed in Italy; the pope, from being an opponent of the Normans, had become their ally. The friendly relations between the pope and emperor had suffered a shock after the Diet of Besançon (1157). On that occasion the papal legate had called the imperial dignity a benefice (beneficium) of the popes. The expression was ambiguous, since the Latin word beneficium might mean either a personal benefit or a feudal concession. There is no doubt, however, that the indignant German princes were right in understanding it to be an assertion of the superiority of the popes over the emperors. In sharp denial of this claim, Frederick defended his imperial sovereignty. The relations between pope and emperor became more strained. Pope Adrian was considering the excommunication of the emperor, when his death relieved the existing tension. Relying on his own resources, Frederick now began another campaign against the cities of Northern Italy. Milan succumbed after a short siege (7 Sept., 1158). At the Diet of Roncaglia the emperor undertook to define with precision the rights of the empire as against its subject rulers and cities, also to restore the earlier strong suzerainty by the appointment of imperial officials (podestà) in the North Italian cities. His intention was to establish peace, but the Lombards failed to understand this and openly rebelled. During his war with the city of Cremona occurred the disputed papal election of 1159. As supreme protector of Christendom, Frederick claimed the right to decide this quarrel. Of course, had he been able to enforce his claims it would have been a proof of the supremacy of the empire. The Synod of Pavia, assembled by Frederick in Feb., 1160, decided in favour of Victor IV. Thereupon, as Victor's protector, Frederick undertook to win over to the cause of this antipope the other rulers of Europe. Milan, in the meantime, had surrendered (March, 1162) and met with a fearful castigation.

The successes of the emperor excited the envy of the other European rulers. Pope Alexander III, animated with the spirit of Gregory VII, refused to acknowledge the imperial supremacy. Around the pope gathered all the enemies of Frederick. The universal papal power was destined to triumph over the idea of a universal imperial power. The Western rulers were determined to resist every attempt to re-establish the imperial hegemony in the West. Frederick was again left to his own resources and, after a short sojourn in Germany, undertook a new expedition to Italy (1163). For a time the death of the antipope, Victor IV, gave rise to hopes of a reconciliation between Frederick and Alexander III, but soon the emperor recognized another antipope, Paschal III. At the same time an anti-imperial alliance, the Lombard League, was formed by the cities of Verona, Vicenza, and Padua; it was joined by Venice, Constantinople, and Sicily. Internal troubles caused by the schism prevented the emperor from coping successfully with the famous League. Some of the German clergy, moreover, had espoused the cause of Alexander III, and Frederick was unable to overcome their opposition. Nevertheless, he again left Germany (1166), marched through the disaffected cities of Northern Italy, and accompanied by the antipope, entered Rome. There a deadly fever destroyed his army, while behind him the Lombard insurrection assumed more dangerous proportions. Lengthy negotiations followed, and the emperor again attempted to overthrow the coalition of the League and Pope Alexander (1174). The great battle of Legnano (29 May, 1176) destroyed the imperial hopes, and left Frederick willing to enter on negotiations for peace. The most important result of the ensuing treaty of Venice (1177) was the failure of the emperor to establish his supremacy over the pope; and in acknowledging the complete equality of Alexander, whom he now recognized as pope, Frederick confessed the defeat of the imperial pretensions.

While Frederick was fighting in Northern Italy, the head of the Guelphs, Henry the Lion, had refused to give him armed assistance. Now he openly rebelled against Frederick. The emperor overthrew Henry, and henceforth aimed at impeding the growth of his powerful vassals by dividing the dukedoms as much as possible. Bavaria, without Styria however, was at this time granted to the Guelph house of Wittelsbach, which act naturally revived the feud between the Houses of Guelph and Hohenstaufen.

The Treaty of Constance (25 June, 1183) between Frederick and the Lombards deprived the pope of his important ally, the combined cities of Northern Italy. Shortly afterwards, Frederick's son Henry married Constance, the Norman princess of Sicily. The papacy was now threatened both from the north and the south. Friendly relations between the pope and the emperor were also endangered by complaints about the exercise of the Jus spolii and the collection of the tithes by laymen. The coronation of Frederick's son Henry as King of Italy (27 Jan., 1186) led to an open rupture. The political weakness of the papacy was offset to some extent by the fact that Philipp von Heinsberg, Archbishop of Cologne and a powerful prince, became the champion of the pope. By skilful management and with the aid of a majority of the German bishops Frederick evaded the threatening peril.

The death of Urban III and the election of Gregory VIII brought about a change in the dealings of the Curia with the empire, owing chiefly to the gloomy reports from the Holy Land.

At the Diet of Mainz in 1188, Frederick took the cross, and on 11 May, 1189, started for Palestine. On 10 June, 1190, he met with a sudden death while crossing the River Saleph in Asia Minor.

      Simonsfeld, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Friedrich I. (Leipzig, 1908), Vol. I, 1152-1158; Prutz, Kaiser Friedrich I. (Danzig, 1871-73); Hauck, Friedrich Barbarossa als Kirchenpolitiker (Leipzig, 1898); Wolfram, Friedrich I. und das Wormser Konkordat (Marburg, 1883); Schaefer, Die Verurteilung Heinrichs des Löwen in Hist. Zeitschrift, LXXVI; Scheffer- Boichorst, Kaiser Friedrichs letzter Streit mit der Kuria (1886).

F. Kampers

Frederick II

German King and Roman Emperor, son of Henry VI and Constance of Sicily; born 26 Dec., 1194; died at Fiorentina, in Apulia, 13 Dec., 1250.

He adopted his father's policy of making Italy the centre of his power, and was interested in Germany only because it guaranteed to him his title to Upper and Central Italy. On the other hand, he could not arrest the dissolution of the empire hastened by the failure of his predecessor Otto IV. The possessions of the empire and those of his own Hohenstaufen family, by means of which Frederick I had sought to build up his power, were plundered. Frederick's sole desire was for peace in Germany, even if to secure this he had to make the greatest sacrifices; and for this reason, he granted to the ecclesiastical and temporal lords a series of privileges, which subsequently developed into the independent sovereignty of these princes. This emperor's policy was entirely dominated by the idea that without Sicily the possession of Italy would always be insecure, and that a king of Italy could not maintain himself without being at the same time emperor. This policy was naturally antagonistic to the papacy. The popes, isolated as they were in Central Italy, felt themselves compelled to prevent the union of Southern Italy with the empire. Frederick recognized this fact, and for several years strove to maintain peace by extreme concessions. Innocent III had chosen Frederick to be his instrument for the destruction of the Guelph, Otto IV. In return for Innocent's support, Frederick had been obliged to make promises to the pope at Eger (12 July, 1215), which would put an end to the undue influence of the civil power over the German bishops. The emancipation of the Church from the royal power dates from this time. The cause of Frederick's concessions to the Church lay not in his religious convictions but in his political aims.

Frederick had also been obliged to acknowledge the pope as his overlord in Sicily, thus abandoning his father's cherished hopes of uniting Sicily with the imperial crown of Germany, though the attempts of the pope to entirely nullify this "personal union" were far from successful. Italian affairs continued to be the hinge on which turned the papal policy towards the emperor, for the popes in their efforts to sustain their traditional supremacy could not allow the emperor a controlling influence in Italy. The conflict between the two powers strangely influenced the Crusades. Frederick had been forced to pledge himself to take part in a new crusade, for which inadequate preparations had been made by the pope, and the Council of Lateran (1215) fixed 1 June, 1216, as the time for beginning the crusade.

The condition of Germany, however, did not permit the absence of thet emperor. At Frankfort in April, 1220, the Germany diet passed regulations concerning the Roman expedition and the crusade. After Frederick's young son Henry had been chosen king, and Engelbert, the powerful Archbishop of Cologne, named vice-regent, Frederick set out for Italy. He was crowned emperor at Rome (22 Nov., 1220), and renewed his vow to take the cross, promising to begin the campaign in the following year. By a severe edict against heretics, he placed the secular power at the service of the Church, and thus appeared to have arrived at a complete understanding with the pope. Even when he failed to keep his promise to start the crusade in the following year, the friendly relations of pope and emperor remained unaltered. For this the peace-loving pope deserved the chief credit, though Frederick also strove to avoid a breach by his loyal policy towards the Holy See. Both Pope and emperor, however, saw that this peace was maintained only by skilful diplomacy, and that it was constantly imperilled by their conflicting interests.

Frederick at this time was chiefly solicitous about Sicily, towards which he was drawn by his Norman parentage on the mother's side, while the character of his own German people did not attract his sympathies. He had grown up in Sicily where Norman, Greek, and Mohammedan civilization had intermingled, at once strengthening and repelling one another. The king, endowed with great natural ability, had acquired a wonderful fund of learning which made him appear a prodigy to his contemporaries, but, although he was intimately acquainted with the greatest productions of eastern and western genius, his soaring spirit never lost itself in romantic dreams. He eagerly studied both the more and the less important interests of the political and economical life of Southern Italy. The funding of the University of Naples sufficiently attests his interest in education. He was an intelligent admirer of the beauties of nature, his love for which was intensified by his natural powers of observation. The unlimited resources of the physical world and its constantly multiplying problems increased the inclination of this sceptical spirit towards a thorough empiricism. In none of his contemporaries does intellectual subjectivism show itself so strongly and at the same time so one-sidedly. This desire to penetrate into the secrets of the universe, as well as his scandalous sensual indulgence, brought on Frederick the reputation of an atheist. In spite, however, of his sceptical tendencies, he was not an atheist. An epigrammatic utterance about "the three impostors, Moses, Christ and Mohammed" has been unjustly ascribed to him in later times, and he remained true to the Church. Perhaps his rationalistic mind took pleasure in the strictly logical character of Catholic dogma. He was not, however, a champion of rationalism, nor had he any sympathy with the mystico-heretical movements of the time; in fact he joined in suppressing them. It was not the Church of the Middle Ages that he antagonized, but its representatives. It is in his conflict with the pope that his colossal character becomes manifest. At the same time, it becomes apparent how he combined force and ability with cunning and the spirit of revenge. His most prominent characteristic was his self-conceit. In Germany this megalomania was kept in check, but not so in Sicily. Here he could build up a modern state, the foundation of which it is true had already been laid by the great Norman kings.

The organization of his Sicilian hereditary states was completed by the "Constitutiones imperiales", published at Amalfi, 1231. In these laws, Frederick appears as sole possessor of every right and privilege, an absolute monarch, or rather an enlightened despot standing at the head of a well-ordered civil hierarchy. His subjects in this system had duties only, but they were well defined. After practically completing the reorganization of Sicily (1235), the emperor attempted, like his powerful grandfather, to re-establish the imperial power in Upper Italy, but with insufficient resources. The result was a new hostile league of the Italian cities. Through the mediation of the pope, however, peace was maintained. During this time Archbishop Engelbert of Cologne, supported by several princes of the empire who had been efficiently assisted by the royal power in their struggle with the cities, preserved the peace in Germany. After the archbishop's death, however, a new order set in–a time of savage feuds and widespread disorder followed by the first open quarrel between the papacy and the emperor. Frederick had completed extensive preparations for a crusade in 1227. Four years previously, he had espoused Isabella (or Iolanthe), heiress of Jerusalem, and now styled himself "Romanorum imperator semper Augustus; Jerusalem et Siciliæ rex". It was his serious intention to carry out his promise to begin his crusade in August, 1227 (under pain of excommunication), but a malignant fever destroyed a great part of his army and prostrated the king himself. Nevertheless Gregory IX declared Frederick excommunicated (29 Sept., 1227), showing by this step that he considered the time had come to break the illusive peace and to clear up the situation.

Although the radical antagonim between empire and papacy did not appear on the surface, it was at the root of the ensuing conflict between Church and State. At the beginning of this struggle the excommunicated emperor started on his crusade against the express wish of the pope, wishing no doubt to justify his attitude by success. On 17 March, 1229, he crowned himself King of Jerusalem. On 10 June, 1229, he landed at Brindisi on his return. During the emperor's absence the curia had taken vigorous measures against him. Frederick's energetic action after his return forced the pope to recognize the emperor's success in the East and to release him from excommunication. The treaty of San Germano (20 July, 1230), in spite of many concessions made by the Emperor, was in reality an evidence of papal defeat. The pope had been unable to break the power of his dangerous adversary. Frederick forthwith resumed his North Italian policy. Again his attempts were frustrated, on this occasion by the threatening attitude of his son Henry, who now appeared as independent ruler of Germany, thereby becoming his father's enemy and unfurling the banner of rebellion (1234). After a long absence, Frederick now returned to Germany, where he took prisoner his rebel son (1235). Henry died in 1242.

About this time Frederick married Elizabeth of England (at Worms), and in 1235 held a brilliant diet at Mainz, where he promulgated the famous Laws of the Empire, a landmark in the development of the empire and its constitutions. New measures for the maintenance of peace were enacted, the right of private feuds was greatly restricted, and an imperial court with its own seal was constituted, thereby establishing a base for the future national law. As soon as the emperor had established order in Germany, he again marched against the Lombards, which conflict soon brought on another with the pope. The latter had several times mediated between the Lombards and the emperor, and now reasserted his right to arbitrate between the contending parties. In the numerous manifestos of the pope and the emperor the antagonism of Church and State becomes daily more evident. The pope claimed for himself the "imperium animarum" and the "principatus rerum et corporum in universo mundo". The emperor on the other hand wished to restore the "imperium mundi"; Rome was again the be the capital of the world and Frederick was to become the real emperor of the Romans. He published an energetic manifesto protesting against the world-empire of the pope. The emperor's successes, especially his victory over the Lombards at the battle of Cortenuova (1237), only embittered the opposition between Church and State. The pope, who had allied himself with Venice, again excommunicated the "self-confessed heretic", the "blasphemous beast of the Apocalypse" (20 March, 1239). Frederick now attempted to conquer the rest of Italy, i.e. the papal states. His son Enrico captured in a sea-fight all the prelates who by the command of Gregory were coming from Genoa to Rome to assist at a general council. Gregory's position was now desperate, and, after his death (22 Aug., 1241), the Holy See remained vacant for almost two years save for the short reign of Celestine IV.

During this interval the bitterness existing between the rival parties seemed to moderate somewhat, and about this time the emperor was threatened by a new and dangerous movement in Germany. The German episcopate could ill bear the prospect of being henceforth at the mercy of the reckless tyrant of Italy. Frederick sought to weaken the hostile bishops by favouring the secular princes and granting privileges to the cities. The energetic Innocent IV ascended the papal throne on 25 June, 1243. To secure peace with the newly elected pontiff, the emperor was inclined to make concessions. The main issue at stake however was not settled, i.e., the jurisdiction of the emperor in North Italy. In order to nullify Frederick's military superiority in the future phases of the struggle, Innocent left Rome secretly and went by way of Genoa to Lyons. Here he summoned a general council (21 June, 1245) by which Frederick was again excommunicated. Immediately there appeared several pretenders in Germany, i.e., Henry Raspe of Thuringia and William of Holland. It was only with the greatest difficulty that Frederick's son Conrad could hold his own in Germany, since the greater part of the clergy supported the pope. Most of the lay lords, however, remained faithful to the emperor and exhibited an attitude of hostility to the clergy. A contemporary writer describes as follows the situation in 1246: "Injustice reigned supreme. The people were without leaders and Rome was troubled. Clerical dignity was lost sight of and the laity were split into various factions. Some were loyal to the Church and took the cross, others adhered to Frederick and became the enemies of God's religion."

For some time fortune alternately smiled and frowned on Frederick in Italy, buit, after completing all his preparations for a decisive battle, he died at Florentina in Apulia, and was buried at Palermo. In German legend he continued to live as the emperor fated to return and reform both Church and State. In more recent times, however, he has had to yield his place in popular legend to Frederick Barbarossa, a figure more in harmony with German sentiment.

Schirrmacher, Kaiser Friedrich II. (Göttingen, 1859-65); Huillard- BrÉholles, Historia diplomatica Frederici secundi (Paris, 1852); Freeman, Historical Essays (London, 1886); Winkelmann, Reichsannalen, Kaiser Friedrich II., 1218-1225; 1228-1233 (Leipzig, 1889); Zeller, L'emperor Fred. II. et la chute de l'empire germanique du moyen âge, Conrad IV et Conradin (1885); Hampe, Kaiser Friedrich II, in Historische Zeitschrift, LXXXIII. Among the Catholic writers see Balan, Storia di Gregorio IX e suoi tempi (Modena, 1872-73); Felten, Papst Gregor IX. (Freiburg, 1886); HergenrÖther- Kirsch, Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed. (Freiburg, 1904).

F. Kampers

Berenger Fredoli

Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati; b. at Vérune, France, c. 1250; d. at Avignon, 11 June, 1323. He was canon and precentor of Béziers, secular Abbot of Saint-Aphrodise in the same city, canon and archdeacon of Corbières, and canon of Aix. He later held the chair of canon law at Bologna, and was appointed chaplain to Celestine V, who in 1294 consecrated him Bishop of Béziers. Fredoli was one of those entrusted by Boniface VIII with the compilation of the text of the Decretals, and afterwards known as the "Liber Sextus". He took a prominent part in the negotiations then in progress between the pope and Philip the Fair, and attended the council held in Rome in 1302. In 1305 Clement V created him cardinal, with the title of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, appointed him major penitentiary, and in 1309 raised him the Cardinal-Bishopric of Frascati. The same pontiff employed him in investigating the charges made against the Knights Templars, and also in the enquiry into the peculiar tenets entertained at that time by a section of the Franciscan Order. On the death of Clement V, Fredoli was proposed by the French cardinals for the vacant chair, but without success. He continued in favour with the new pope, John XXII, by whose order he deposed the Abbot of Gerald and Hugo, Bishop of Cahors, for conspiring against the pope's life. The works of Fredoli are chiefly concerned with canon law, and include "Oculus", a commentary on the "Summa" of the Cardinal of Ostia (Basle, 1573), "Inventarium juris canonici", and "Inventarium speculi judicialis", abridged from a work of Durand, Bishop of Mendes.

A namesake and nephew of the preceding was Bishop of Béziers in 1309, and Cardinal-Bishop of Porto in 1317. He died in 1323.

H.G. WINTERSGILL

Free Church of Scotland

(Known since 1900 as the UNITED FREE CHURCH)

An ecclesiastical organization in Scotland which includes (1908) more than 500,000 of the 1,200,000 inhabitants of that country professing adherence to Presbyterian principles. The existence of the Free Church as a separate ecclesiastical body dates from 1843, when a large number of members, both lay and clerical, of the Established Church of Scotland, severed their connection with that body as a protest against the encroachment of the civil power on the independence of the Church, especially in the matters of presentation to vacant benefices.

According to the Free-Church view, the Church of Scotland, from the date of its inception in 1560, upon the overthrow of the old religion had possessed the inherent right of exercising her spiritual jurisdiction through her elected assembly, absolutely free of any interference by the civil power. Such an independence had been asserted by her first leaders, Knox and Melville, and especially laid down and claimed in both the first and second books of discipline, issued in 1560 and 1581. The restoration of "prelacy"(the episcopal form of church government) in 1606 by James I, the revival of self governing powers of the Assembly in 1649, its subsequent suspension under Cromwell in 1653 and again after the Restoration, the Revolution settlement in 1690, and the Act of Queen Anne in 1712 re-establishing the system of private patronage in the Presbyterian Church, were the principal crisis, now favorable, now the reverse, to the cherished principles of spiritual independence, through which the Church passed during the first century and a half of its existence. Throughout the eighteenth century a party within the Church continued to protest against civil interference with her rights, especially as regarded patronage; but at the same time there grew up the ecclesiastical party known as Moderates, who in this and other questions displayed an indifference towards state encroachments which more than neutralized the sentiments of the more fervent section. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, the latter was strengthened by the growing force of so-called " Evangelicalism", which was sweeping over Scotland as well as England.. The views of the two parties, the Evangelical and the Moderate, became more and more opposed, the final result being the "Ten Years Conflict" between them, which ended in the triumph of the former, and in the passing by the General Assembly in 1834, of the famous "Veto Act". This act asserted (or rather reasserted, for the principle had often been declared in previous Assemblies) that it was a fundamental law of the Church that no pastor should be intruded upon a congregation contrary to the popular will, and that any presentee to a living should be rejected on the dissent of a majority of the heads of families. This direct blow at the right of private patrons was soon challenged in the civil courts, and was ultimately decided (1838) in the famous Auchterarder case against the Church. The decision immediately elicited from the Assembly a still clearer and more outspoken declaration of independence of the Church; and when it was finally confirmed by the House of Lords, in 1839, the Assembly resolved to transmit to the sovereign, through the Lord High Commissioner who presided over its proceedings, a "claim, declaration and protest" complaining of the encroachment of the civil power, and praying for the abolition of patronage. An unfavorable answer was received, and in response to a petition submitted to the House of Commons, that body refused any redress of the grievances complained of. Accordingly at the next meeting of the General Assembly, 369 members, afterwards increased to 474, withdrew in a body, and constituted the first Assembly of the new Free Church, under Dr. Thomas Chalmers as moderator. The ministers and professors adhering to the newly constituted body publicly renounced all claims to the benefices which they had held in the Established Church, thus surrendering an annual income of upwards of £ 100,000.

A sustentation fund, was at once in inaugurated for the new organization, and nearly £ 400,000 was subscribed for the erection of churches in the first year after the "Disruption", as it came to be called. Colleges for the training of the clergy were subsequently built at large cost in Edinburgh and Aberdeen; manses (residences for the ministers) were erected at a cost of a quarter of a million; and an equal or larger amount was expended on the building of congregational schools. After the passing of the Education Act of 1872, most of these schools were voluntarily transferred by the Free Church to the newly established school-boards.

The Free Church never professed to adopt any new articles of faith, to inaugurate any new ritual, or originate any new principle of doctrine or discipline. She claimed to represent the Presbyterian Church of the country enjoying its full spiritual independence, and freed from the undue encroachment of the State; but it did not abandon the principle of establishment, or give up the view that the Church and State ought to be in intimate alliance. This raised the difficulty in the way of its union with the United Presbyterians, the nest most numerous and important body of seceders from the Establishment, and for many years rendered all negotiations for such union abortive. In 1876, Cameronians, or Reformed Presbyterians, joined the Free Church, and, possibly under the stimulus of this achievement, negotiations were renewed for union with the U.P.'s as they were familiarly called. These proved finally successful, and the union between the U.P.'s and the Free Church became an accomplished fact on 31 October, 1900. A small minority of Free Churchmen resisted the fusion of the two bodies, and these (the "Wee Frees", as they were nicknamed) were successful in the Scottish Courts in claiming, as the original Free Church, nearly all the buildings erected by the body in the previous fifty seven years. This anomaly, however was rectified by a subsequent Act of Parliament (following the Royal Commission) which permitted the "WEE FREES" to retain only such churches and other edifices as were proportionate to the small number of their adherents.

The well-wishers of the new United Free Church are naturally looking forward to an enlarged field of influence and a wider scope of activity, both at home and in the mission-field. What must, however, fill with anxiety every friend of Scottish Christianity who studies the teaching of this body, both in its training colleges and in its pulpits, is the spirit of rationalism by which it is becoming more and more pervaded. A generation has since passed away since its most brilliant member William Robertson Smith, was summarily removed from his professorial chair at Aberdeen on account of his latitudinarian views as expressed in his published articles. The "Higher Criticism" of the Free Church of today, largely based as it is on the rationalizationing influence of German Protestant theology, goes far beyond the "heresies and errors" for which Smith indicted thirty years ago. It is hardly too much to say that the modern Free Churchman is really not a Christian at all, in the Catholic sense of that word. The United Free Church, by the re-arrangement of its two constituent bodies has now (1908) twelve synods and twenty-four presbyteries. Its supreme court is the General Assembly, which meets every May in Edinburgh. According to the latest statistics the total membership body is about 504,000, divided into 1623 congregations. 244,000 scholars, taught by 26,000 teachers, frequent the Sunday Schools which number 2400. Some 300 agents from Scotland, and nearly 4000 native pastors and teachers, are employed in foreign mission work, and the whole income of the Church, at the close of this last financial year, was estimated at £ 1,029,000.

TURNER, The Scottish Secession of 1843 (Edinburgh, 1854); WILSON, Free Church Principles (Edinburgh, 1887); BROWN, Annals of the Disruption (Edinburgh,1885); BUCHANAN, Ten Years' Conflict (Glascow, 1849); SYNOW, Die schottischen Kirchen (Potsdam, 1845); HANNA, Life of Chalmers (1852).

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Ven. William Freeman

A priest and martyr, b. at Manthorp near York, c. 1558; d. at Warwick, 13 August, 1595. His parents were recusants, though he conformed outwardly for some time to the religion of the country. Educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, he took his degree as B.A. in 1581, then lived for some years in London, where he witnessed the martyrdom of Edward Stransham in 1586. Strongly impressed with this example, he left England and was ordained priest in 1587 at Reims. Returning to England in 1589, he worked for six years on the borders of Warwickshire, and in his interesting life many persons are mentioned who were contemporaries or friends of Shakespeare. In January, 1595, a special commission was sent down to Stratford-on-Avon to search the house of Mrs. Heaths who bad engaged his services as tutor to her son. William Freeman was arrested, and spent seven months in Drison. He denied his priesthood, but also refused all friendly offers to escape, not wishing to lose his opportunity of martyrdom. Owing to the treachery of a fellow-prisoner, William Gregory, he was at last sentenced as a seminary priest and in spite of a touching protest of loyalty, suffered the death of a traitor at Warwick.

J.H. POLLEN

Free-Thinkers

Those who, abandoning the religious truths and moral dictates of the Christian Revelation, and accepting no dogmatic teaching on the ground of authority, base their beliefs on the unfettered findings of reason alone. Free-thought, of which they make a profession, is an exaggerated form, though a quite logical development of the doctrine of private judgement in religious matters. The free-thinker holds such principles, whether of truth or of action, as he is persuaded he can prove; and he gives assent to no others. He is a rationalist. But since the persuasion of having proved (or of being able to prove) even the doctrines of natural religion by reason alone varies infinitely with the individual, it is difficult, save on the most general lines, to class free thinkers together. This difficulty is apparent in the case of the Deists, to whom the appellation was characteristically applied in the latter end of the seventeenth century. They all agree however, in refusing to accept the doctrines of an authoritative Christianity; and it is on this negative ground that their position is most clearly defined.

Although the words "Free-thinker" and "Free-thought" first appeared in connection with the English Deists [Collins, "Discourse of freethinking occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect called Freethinkers" (1713), gives the deistical tendency this name], "the phenomenon of free-thought has existed, in specific form, long before it could express itself in propagandist writings, or find any generic name save those of Atheism or Infidelity" (Robertson). Taken in the broad sense in which Robertson here uses it, the term would seem to include the reactionary movement against any traditional form of doctrine to which men were expected to assent. In this sense it is possible to speak of free-thinkers of Greece or Rome, or, indeed of any considerable body that can impress its teaching upon the multitudes. There were undoubtedly, to a certain extent at any rate, in classical times those who either publicly scoffed at the authoritative myths of their country's religion or philosophically explained their meaning away. So — but this in a truer sense — in the Middle Ages there were to be found rationalists, or free-thinkers, among the philosophers of the schools. The Fathers of the Church had met paganism with its own weapons and argued against the falsehoods with the help of the natural reason. The early heretics were free-thinkers in their rejection of the regulating authority of the Church upon points connected with their heresies, which they elaborated frequently upon rationalistic lines; and the pantheists and others of the schools criticized and syllogized revelation away in true free-thought style. Both were in consequence condemned; but the spirit of excess in criticism and the reliance on the sufficiency of human reason are as typical of the free thought of the medieval times as that of the twentieth century.

From the Deists onwards, free thought has undoubtedly gained ground among the masses. Originally the intellectual excess of the learned and the student, and rarely leaving the study in a form in which it could be expected to be at all popular, it began with Annet and Chubb (see Deism) to become vulgarized and to penetrate the lower strata of society. Its open professors have apparently been less numerous than its adherents. Some stop short in a negative position, claiming no more than autonomy for the science or philosophy they represent. Others carry on a bitter and unscrupulous warfare against religion. It is apparent in the various branches of science and criticism, as well as in philosophy; and though it generally pretends to a scientific plan it makes use of a priori methods more than posteriori ones. One of its most dangerous forms, which generally ends in pure religious skepticism, can be traced to the Kantian distinction between noumenal and the phenomenal. But its main positive positions are the denial of prophesy, miracle and inspiration, its rejection of all external revelation (including obviously ecclesiastical authority), and its assertion of the right of free speculation in all rational matters. On this latter frequently follows the negation of, or suspension of judgement with regard to, the existence of God (atheism and agnosticism), and the denial of the immortality of the soul or of its truth being susceptible of proof, and the rejection of freedom of the will. Among the principal free-thinkers may be mentioned Voltaire, Thomas Paine (the Rights of Man), Renan, Ingersoll, Strauss (Leben Jesu), Haeckel, Clough, and Holyoake.

ROBERTSON, A Short History of Freethought,2d ed. (London,1899); WHEELER, Biog. Dict. of Freethinkers (London, 1889); GERARD, Modern Freethought in Westminster Lectures (London, 1905); MACCANN, Secularism: unphilosophical, immoral and anti-social (London, 1887); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (Edinburgh, 1885) PEARSON, Positive Creed of Freethought (London, 1888); CAIRNS, Unbelief in the Eighteenth Century (Edinburgh, 1882); STATHAM, Freethought and True Thought (London, 1884); SANDAY, Freethinking in Oxford House Papers, No. IX (1886); The Fallacies of Atheism explored by a Working Man (London, 1882); also bibliography under DEISM.

FRANCIS AVELING

Free Will

• RELATION OF THE QUESTION TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
• HISTORY
  • Free Will in Ancient Philosophy
  • Free Will and the Christian Religion
  • • Catholic Doctrine
    • Thomist and Molinist Theories
    • Free will and the Protestant Reformers
  • Free Will in Modern Philosophy
• THE ARGUMENT
  • Proof
  • Objections
• NATURE AND RANGE OF MORAL LIBERTY
• CONSEQUENCES

The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.

RELATION OF THE QUESTION TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

(1) Ethically, the issue vitally affects the meaning of most of our fundamental moral terms and ideas. Responsibility, merit, duty, remorse, justice, and the like, will have a totally different significance for one who believes that all man's acts are in the last resort completely determined by agencies beyond his power, from that which these terms bear for the man who believes that each human being possessed of reason can by his own free will determine his deliberate volitions and so exercise a real command over his thoughts, his deeds, and the formation of his character.

(2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present time.

(3) Causality, change, movement, the beginning of existence, are notions which lie at the very heart of metaphysics. The conception of the human will as a free cause involves them all.

(4) Again, the analysis of voluntary action and the investigation of its peculiar features are the special functions of Psychology. Indeed, the nature of the process of volition and of all forms of appetitive or conative activity is a topic that has absorbed a constantly increasing space in psychological literature during the past fifty years.

(5) Finally, the rapid growth of sundry branches of modern science, such as physics, biology, sociology, and the systematization of moral statistics, has made the doctrine of free will a topic of the most keen interest in many departments of more positive knowledge.

HISTORY

Free Will in Ancient Philosophy

The question of free will does not seem to have presented itself very clearly to the early Greek philosophers. Some historians have held that the Pythagoreans must have allotted a certain degree of moral freedom to man, from their recognition of man's responsibility for sin with consequent retribution experienced in the course of the transmigration of souls. The Eleatics adhered to a pantheistic monism, in which they emphasized the immutability of one eternal unchangeable principle so as to leave no room for freedom. Democritus also taught that all events occur by necessity, and the Greek atomists generally, like their modern representatives, advocated a mechanical theory of the universe, which excluded all contingency. With Socrates, the moral aspect of all philosophical problems became prominent, yet his identification of all virtue with knowledge and his intense personal conviction that it is impossible deliberately to do what one clearly perceives to be wrong, led him to hold that the good, being identical with the true, imposes itself irresistibly on the will as on the intellect, when distinctly apprehended. Every man necessarily wills his greatest good, and his actions are merely means to this end. He who commits evil does so out of ignorance as to the right means to the true good. Plato held in the main the same view. Virtue is the determination of the will by the knowledge of the good; it is true freedom. The wicked man is ignorant and a slave. Sometimes, however, Plato seems to suppose that the soul possessed genuine free choice in a previous life, which there decided its future destiny. Aristotle disagrees with both Plato and Socrates, at least in part. He appeals to experience. Men can act against the knowledge of the true good; vice is voluntary. Man is responsible for his actions as the parent of them. Moreover his particular actions, as means to his end, are contingent, a matter of deliberation and subject to choice. The future is not all predictable. Some events depend on chance. Aristotle was not troubled by the difficulty of prevision on the part of his God. Still his physical theory of the universe, the action he allots to the noûs poietkós, and the irresistible influence exerted by the Prime Mover make the conception of genuine moral freedom in his system very obscure and difficult. The Stoics adopted a form of materialistic Pantheism. God and the world are one. All the world's movements are governed by rigid law. Unvaried causality unity of design, fatalistic government, prophecy and foreknowledge--all these factors exclude chance and the possibility of free will. Epicurus, oddly in contrast here with his modern hedonistic followers, advocates free will and modifies the strict determinism of the atomists, whose physics he accepts, by ascribing to the atoms a clinamen, a faculty of random deviation in their movements. His openly professed object, however, in this point as in the rest of his philosophy, is to release men from the fears caused by belief in irresistible fate.

Free Will and the Christian Religion

The problem of free will assumed quite a new character with the advent of the Christian religion. The doctrine that God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes. All alike are inexorably predetermined for him. Again, the difficulty of the question was augmented still further by the Christian dogma of the fall of man and his redemption by grace. St. Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, is the great source of the Catholic theology of grace.

Catholic Doctrine

Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelageians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine's teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God's omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man's freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church--both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas--attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.

Thomist and Molinist Theories

The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man's will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man--who is by nature a free cause--to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man's future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Suarez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man's will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God's knowledge of what a free being would choose, if the necessary conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically prior to any decree of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice. Briefly, they make a threefold distinction in God's knowledge of the universe based on the nature of the objects known--the Divine knowledge being in itself of course absolutely simple. Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's knowledge of this class of contingencies they term scientia media. For instance Christ affirmed that, if certain miracles had been wrought in Tyre and Sidon, the inhabitants would have been converted. The condition was not realized, yet the statement of Christ must have been true. About all such conditional contingencies propositions may be framed which are either true or false--and Infinite Intelligence must know all truth. The conditions in many cases will not be realized, so God must know them apart from any decrees determining their realization. He knows them therefore, this school holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible. Acting now in the light of this scientia media with respect to human volitions, God freely decides according to His own wisdom whether He shall supply the requisite conditions, including His co-operation in the action, or abstain from so doing, and thus render possible or prevent the realization of the event. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God sees clearly what would happen in any conceivable circumstances. He thus knows what the free will of any creature would choose, if supplied with the power of volition or choice and placed in any given circumstances. He now decrees to supply the needed conditions, including His corcursus, or to abstain from so doing. He thus holds complete dominion and control over our future free actions, as well as over those of a necessary character. The Molinist then claims to safeguard better man's freedom by substituting for the decree of an inflexible premotion one of concurrence dependent on God's prior knowledge of what the free being would choose. If given the power to exert the choice. He argues that he exempts God more clearly from all responsibility for man's sins. The claim seems to the present writer well founded; at the same time it is only fair to record on the other side that the Thomist urges with considerable force that God's prescience is not so understandable in this, as in his theory. He maintains, too, that God's exercise of His absolute dominion over all man's acts and man's entire dependence on God's goodwill are more impressively and more worthily exhibited in the premotion hypothesis. The reader will find an exhaustive treatment of the question in any of the Scholastic textbooks on the subject.

Free will and the Protestant Reformers

A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate. In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains. With Calvin, God's preordination is, if possible, even more fatal to free will. Man can perform no sort of good act unless necessitated to it by God's grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of the human will "co-operating" with God's grace, for this would imply that man could resist the grace of God. The will of God is the very necessity of things. It is objected that in this case God sometimes imposes impossible commands. Both Calvin and Luther reply that the commands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, the Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v).

Free Will in Modern Philosophy

Although from Descartes onward, philosophy became more and more separated from theology, still the theological significance of this particular question has always been felt to be of the highest moment. Descartes himself at times clearly maintains the freedom of the will (Meditations, III and IV). At times, however, he attenuates this view and leans towards a species of providential determinism, which is, indeed, the logical consequence of the doctrines of occasionalism and the inefficacy of secondary causes latent in his system.

Malebranche developed this feature of Descartes's teaching. Soul and body cannot really act on each other. The changes in the one are directly caused by God on the occasion of the corresponding change in the other. So-called secondary causes are not really efficacious. Only the First Cause truly acts. If this view be consistently thought out, the soul, since it possesses no genuine causality, cannot be justly said to be free in its volitions. Still, as a Catholic theologian, Malebranche could not accept this fatalistic determinism. Accordingly he defended freedom as essential to religion and morality. Human liberty being denied, God should be deemed cruel and unjust, whilst duty and responsibility for man cease to exist. We must therefore be free. Spinoza was more logical. Starting from certain principles of Descartes, he deduced in mathematical fashion an iron-bound pantheistic fatalism which left no room for contingency in the universe and still less for free will. In Leibniz, the prominence given to the principle of sufficient reason, the doctrine that man must choose that which the intellect judges as the better, and the optimistic theory that God Himself has inevitably chosen the present as being the best of all possible worlds, these views, when logically reasoned out, leave very little reality to free will, though Leibniz set himself in marked opposition to the monistic geometrical necessarianism of Spinoza.

In England the mechanical materialism of Hobbes was incompatible with moral liberty, and he accepted with cynical frankness all the logical consequences of his theory. Our actions either follow the first appetite that arises in the mind, or there is a series of alternate appetites and fears, which we call deliberation. The last appetite or fear, that which triumphs, we call will. The only intelligible freedom is the power to do what one desires. Here Hobbes is practically at one with Locke. God is the author of all causes and effects, but is not the author of sin, because an action ceases to be sin if God wills it to happen. Still God is the cause of sin. Praise and blame, rewards and punishments cannot be called useless, because they strengthen motives, which are the causes of action. This, however, does not meet the objection to the justice of such blame or praise, if the person has not the power to abstain from or perform the actions thus punished or rewarded. Hume reinforced the determinist attack on free will by his suggested psychological analysis of the notion or feeling of "necessity". The controversy, according to him, has been due to misconception of the meaning of words and the error that the alternative to free will is necessity. This necessity, he says, is erroneously ascribed to some kind of internal nexus supposed to bind all causes to their effects, whereas there is really nothing more in causality than constant succession. The imagined necessity is merely a product of custom or association of ideas. Not feeling in our acts of choice this necessity, which we attribute to the causation of material agents, we mistakenly imagine that our volitions have no causes and so are free, whereas they are as strictly determined by the feelings or motives which have gone before, as any material effects are determined by their material antecedents. In all our reasonings respecting other persons, we infer their future conduct from their wonted action under particular motives with the same sort of certainty as in the case of physical causation.

The same line of argument was adopted by the Associationist School down to Bain and J. S. Mill. For the necessity of Hobbes or Spinoza is substituted by their descendants what Professor James calls a "soft determinism", affirming solely the invariable succession of volition upon motive. J. S. Mill merely developed with greater clearness and fuller detail the principles of Hume. In particular, he attacked the notion of "constraint" suggested in the words necessity and necessarianism, whereas only sequence is affirmed. Given a perfect knowledge of character and motives, we could infallibly predict action. The alleged consciousness of freedom is disputed. We merely feel that we choose, not that we could choose the opposite. Moreover the notion of free will is unintelligible. The truth is that for the Sensationalist School, who believe the mind to be merely a series of mental states, free will is an absurdity. On the other side, Reid, and Stewart, and Hamilton, of the Scotch School, with Mansel, Martineau, W. J. Ward, and other Spiritualist thinkers of Great Britain, energetically defended free will against the disciples of Hume. They maintained that a more careful analysis of volition justified the argument from consciousness, that the universal conviction of mankind on such a fact may not be set aside as an illusion, that morality cannot be founded on an act of self-deception; that all languages contain terms involving the notion of free will and all laws assume its existence, and that the attempt to render necessarianism less objectionable by calling it determinism does not diminish the fatalism involved in it.

The truth that phenomenalism logically involves determinism is strikingly illustrated in Kant's treatment of the question. His well-known division of all reality into phenomena and noumena is his key to this problem also. The world as it appears to us, the world of phenomena, including our own actions and mental states, can only be conceived under the form of time and subject to the category of causality, and therefore everything in the world of experience happens altogether according to the laws of nature; that is, all our actions are rigidly determined. But, on the other hand, freedom is a necessary postulate of morality: "Thou canst, because thou oughtest." The solution of the antinomy is that the determinism concerns only the empirical or phenomenal world. There is no ground for denying liberty to the Ding an sich. We may believe in transcendental freedom, that we are noumenally free. Since, moreover, the belief that I am free and that I am a free cause, is the foundation stone of religion and morality, I must believe in this postulate. Kant thus gets over the antinomy by confining freedom to the world of noumena, which lie outside the form of time and the category of causality, whilst he affirms necessity of the sensible world, bound by the chain of causality. Apart from the general objection to Kant's system, a grave difficulty here lies in the fact that all man's conduct--his whole moral life as it is revealed in actual experience either to others or himself--pertains in this view to the phenomenal world and so is rigidly determined.

Though much acute philosophical and psychological analysis has been brought to bear on the problem during the last century, it cannot be said that any great additional light has been shed over it. In Germany, Schopenhauer made will the noumenal basis of the world and adopted a pessimistic theory of the universe, denying free will to be justified by either ethics or psychology. On the other hand, Lotze, in many respects perhaps the acutest thinker in Germany since Kant, was an energetic defender of moral liberty. Among recent psychologists in America Professors James and Ladd are both advocates of freedom, though laying more stress for positive proof on the ethical than on the psychological evidence.

THE ARGUMENT

As the main features of the doctrine of free will have been sketched in the history of the problem, a very brief account of the argument for moral freedom will now suffice. Will viewed as a free power is defined by defenders of free will as the capacity of self-determination. By self is here understood not a single present mental state (James), nor a series of mental states (Hume and Mill), but an abiding rational being which is the subject and cause of these states. We should distinguish between:

1. spontaneous acts, those proceeding from an internal principle (e.g. the growth of plants and impulsive movements of animals);
2. voluntary acts in a wide sense, those proceeding from an internal principle with apprehension of an end (e.g. all conscious desires); and, finally
3. those voluntary in the strict sense, that is, deliberate or free acts.

In such, there is a self-conscious advertence to our own causality or an awareness that we are choosing the act, or acquiescing in the desire of it. Spontaneous acts and desires are opposed to coaction or external compulsion, but they are not thereby morally free acts. They may still be the necessary outcome of the nature of the agent as, e.g. the actions of lower animals, of the insane, of young children, and many impulsive acts of mature life. The essential feature in free volition is the element of choice--the vis electiva, as St. Thomas calls it. There is a concomitant interrogative awareness in the form of the query "shall I acquiesce or shall I resist? Shall I do it or something else?", and the consequent acceptance or refusal, ratification or rejection, though either may be of varying degrees of completeness. It is this act of consent or approval, which converts a mere involuntary impulse or desire into a free volition and makes me accountable for it. A train of thought or volition deliberately initiated or acquiesced in, but afterward continued merely spontaneously without reflective advertence to our elective adoption of it, remains free in causa, and I am therefore responsible for it, though actually the process has passed into the department of merely spontaneous or automatic activity. A large part of the operation of carrying out a resolution, once the decision is made, is commonly of this kind. The question of free will may now be stated thus. "Given all the conditions requisite for eliciting an act of will except the act itself, does the act necessarily follow?" Or, "Are all my volitions the inevitable outcome of my character and the motives acting on me at the time?" Fatalists, necessarians, determinists say "Yes". Libertarians, indeterminists or anti-determinists say "No. The mind or soul in deliberate actions is a free cause. Given all the conditions requisite for action, it can either act or abstain from action. It can, and sometimes does, exercise its own causality against the weight of character and present motives.

Proof

The evidence usually adduced at the present day is of two kinds, ethical and psychological--though even the ethical argument is itself psychological.

(1) Ethical Argument. It is argued that necessarianism or determinism in any form is in conflict with the chief moral notions and convictions of mankind at large. The actual universality of such moral ideas is indisputable. Duty, moral obligation, responsibility, merit, justice signify notions universally present in the consciousness of normally developed men. Further, these notions, as universally understood, imply that man is really master of some of his acts, that he is, at least at times, capable of self-determination, that all his volitions are not the inevitable outcome of his circumstances. When I say that I ought not to have performed some forbidden act, that it was my duty to obey the law, I imply that I could have done so. The judgment of all men is the same on this point. When we say that a person is justly held responsible for a crime, or that he deserves praise or reward for an heroic act of self-sacrifice, we mean that he was author and cause of that act in such fashion that he had it in his power not to perform the act. We exempt the insane or the child, because we believe them devoid of moral freedom and determined inevitably by the motives which happened to act on them. So true is this, that determinists have had to admit that the meaning of these terms will, according to their view, have to be changed. But this is to admit that their theory is in direct conflict with universal psychological facts. It thereby stands disproved. Again, it may be urged that, if logically followed out, the determinist doctrine would annihilate human morality, consequently that such a theory cannot be true. (See FATALISM.)

(2) Psychological Argument. Consciousness testifies to our moral freedom. We feel ourselves to be free when exercising certain acts. We judge afterwards that we acted freely in those acts. We distinguish them quite clearly from experiences, in which we believe we were not free or responsible. The conviction is not confined to the ignorant; even the determinist psychologist is governed in practical life by this belief. Henry Sidgwick states the fact in the most moderate terms, when he says:

Certainly in the case of actions in which I have a distinct consciousness of choosing between alternatives of conduct, one of which I conceive as right or reasonable, I find it impossible not to think that I can now choose to do what I so conceive, however strong may be my inclination to act unreasonably, and however uniformly I may have yielded to such inclinations in the past (Methods of Ethics).

The force of the evidence is best realized by carefully studying the various mental activities in which freedom is exercised. Amongst the chief of these are: voluntary attention, deliberation, choice, sustained resistance to temptation. The reader will find them analyzed at length by the authors referred to at the end of this article; or, better still, he can think them out with concrete examples in his own inner experience.

Objections

The main objection to this argument is stated in the assertion that we can be conscious only of what we actually do, not of our ability to do something else. The reply is that we can be conscious not only of what we do, but of how we do it; not only of the act but of the mode of the act. Observation reveals to us that we are subjects of different kinds of processes of thought and volition. Sometimes the line of conscious activity follows the direction of spontaneous impulse, the preponderating force of present motive and desire; at other times we intervene and exert personal causality. Consciousness testifies that we freely and actively strengthen one set of motives, resist the stronger inclination, and not only drift to one side but actively choose it. In fact, we are sure that we sometimes exert free volition, because at other times we are the subject of conscious activities that are not free, and we know the difference. Again, it is urged that experience shows that men are determined by motives, and that we always act on this assumption. The reply is that experience proves that men are influenced by motives, but not that they are always inexorably determined by the strongest motive. It as alleged that we always decide in favour of the strongest motive. This is either untrue, or the barren statement that we always choose what we choose. A free volition is "a causeless volition". The mind itself is the cause. (For other objections see FATALISM; ENERGY, THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF; and the works referred to at the end of this article.)

NATURE AND RANGE OF MORAL LIBERTY

Free will does not mean capability of willing in the absence of all motive, or of arbitrarily choosing anything whatever. The rational being is always attracted by what is apprehended as good. Pure evil, misery as such, man could not desire. However, the good presents itself in many forms and under many aspects--the pleasant, the prudent, the right, the noble, the beautiful--and in reflective or deliberate action we can choose among these. The clear vision of God would necessarily preclude all volition at variance with this object, but in this world we never apprehend Infinite Good. Nor does the doctrine of free will imply that man is constantly exerting this power at every waking moment, any more than the statement that he is a "rational" animal implies that he is always reasoning. Much the larger part of man's ordinary life is administered by the machinery of reflex action, the automatic working of the organism, and acquired habits. In the series of customary acts which fill up our day, such as rising, meals, study, work, etc., probably the large majority are merely "spontaneous" and are proximately determined by their antecedents, according to the combined force of character and motive. There is nothing to arouse special volition, or call for interference with the natural current, so the stream of consciousness flows smoothly along the channel of least resistance. For such series of acts we are responsible, as was before indicated, not because we exert deliberate volition at each step, but because they are free in causa, because we have either freely initiated them, or approved them from time to time when we adverted to their ethical quality, or because we freely acquired the habits which now accomplish these acts. It is especially when some act of a specially moral complexion is recognized as good or evil that the exertion of our freedom is brought into play. With reflective advertence to the moral quality comes the apprehension that we are called on to decide between right and wrong; then the consciousness that we are choosing freely, which carries with it the subsequent conviction that the act was in the strictest sense our own, and that we are responsible for it.

CONSEQUENCES

Our moral freedom, like other mental powers, is strengthened by exercise. The practice of yielding to impulse results in enfeebling self-control. The faculty of inhibiting pressing desires, of concentrating attention on more remote goods, of reinforcing the higher but less urgent motives, undergoes a kind of atrophy by disuse. In proportion as a man habitually yields to intemperance or some other vice, his freedom diminishes and he does in a true sense sink into slavery. He continues responsible in causa for his subsequent conduct, though his ability to resist temptation at the time is lessened. On the other hand, the more frequently a man restrains mere impulse, checks inclination towards the pleasant, puts forth self-denial in the face of temptation, and steadily aims at a virtuous life, the more does he increase in self-command and therefore in freedom. The whole doctrine of Christian asceticism thus makes for developing and fostering moral liberty, the noblest attribute of man. William James's sound maxim: "Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day", so that your will may be strong to stand the pressure of violent temptation when it comes, is the verdict of the most modern psychology in favour of the discipline of the Catholic Church.

The literature of the free-will controversy is enormous, nearly all the leading philosophers having dealt with the problem. Perhaps the best general historical treatment of all the branches of the question--fatalism, predestination, necessarianism, determinism--is to be found in FONSEGRIVE, Essai sur le libre arbitre (2nd ed., Paris, 1896). See also ALEXANDER, Theories of the Will (New York, 1884); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of Problems of Philosophy (tr. New York and London, 1902).

MICHAEL MAHER

Federigo Fregoso

Cardinal; b. at Genoa, about 1480; d. 22 July, 1541; belonged to the Fregosi, one of the four great burgess families who from the end of the fourteenth century gave many doges to the republic. Federigo was the son of Agostino Fregoso, governor of Genoa in 1488 for Ludovic Moro, and of Gentilla de Montefeltre, niece of Guidobaldo, Duke of Urbino. His brother, Ottaviano, was Doge of Genoa. Having spent his youth at the court of his uncle, the Duke of Urbino, he took Holy orders, and in 1507 received from Julius II the Archbishopric of Salerno. But the King of Spain having refused to recognize him because of his sympathies with France, the Pope promised him the See of Gubbio. At the court of Urbino, Federigo had received a good classical education, and had allied himself with such humanists as Bembo and Baldasare Castiglione. Every day he withdrew himself from his occupations in order to devote several hours to the study of the ancients. Nevertheless, circumstances were to make him a man of action.

In 1510, after the troubles in Genoa and the victory of the Adorni, Federigo was exiled and compelled to seek refuge at Rome. Three years later, the Fregosi returned to Genoa, Ottaviano was elected Doge, and Federigo, having become his chief counsellor, was placed at the head of the army, and defended the republic against internal dangers (revolts of the Adorni and the Fieschi) and external dangers (suppression of the Barbary piracy). Cortogoli, a corsair from Tunis, blockaded the coast with a squadron, and within a few days had captured eighteen merchantmen. Being given the command of the Genoese fleet, in which Andrea Doria was serving, Federigo surprised Cortogoli before Bizerta, effected a descent on the island of Djerba and returned to Genoa with great booty. The Fregosi had recognized Francis I, King of France, as Lord of Genoa. In 1522, Charles V besieged the city. Federigo directed the defence and was wounded. The Spaniards having taken the city by assault, he was compelled to seek safety on a French vessel. Francis I accorded him a warm reception and gave him the Abbey of St. Benignus at Dijon. Here he devoted himself to the study of Greek and Hebrew, but he had quarrels with the monks, who could not endure his severity, and he returned to Italy. In 1529 he resigned the See of Salerno and was named titular Bishop of Gubbio. In 1539 Paul III made him a cardinal-priest, with the title of St. John and St. Paul. He died at Gubbio, in 1541, mourned by the people of his diocese, who had named him, "the father of the poor". He wrote several edifying works, and some of his letters are in the collections of Bembo and Baldassare Castiglione.

LOUIS BREHIER

Freiburg

City, archdiocese, and university in the Archduchy of Baden, Germany.

THE CITY

Freiburg in Breisgau, the third largest city in Baden, is beautifully situated at the foot of the Schwarzwald mountains on both banks of the Dreisam. The census of 1 December, 1905, gave the number of its inhabitants as 76,286, of whom 53,133 were Catholics. The city was founded in 1120 by Conrad, a member of the Swabian House of Zähringen, which rules in Baden even to this day. According to the original city charter, which is still in existence, the city was from the beginning a market or commercial centre, and all the privileges then enjoyed by the citizens of Cologne were granted to the merchants and other citizens who settled in Freiburg. It became a flourishing town even during the lifetime of its founder. In 1146 Bernard of Clairvaux preached the crusades there. It appears that under Berthold IV (1112-1186), Conrad's successor, the erection of a Romanesque cathedral was begun. After the death of Berthold V (son of preceding), Freiburg was inherited by his brother-in-law, Count Egon I of Urach. The consort of Egon II (1218-36) induced the Dominican Fathers to settle in Freiburg, and founded at Adelhausen the Dominican nunnery, renowned in the history of German mysticism. Among the famous Dominicans connected in some degree with Freiburg were Albert the Great and John of Freiburg, while Berthold the Black (der schwarze Berthold), the supposed inventor of gunpowder, was a member of the local Franciscan convent. The city took advantage of the pecuniary embarrassment of its lords to purchase important rights and liberties. Ludwig of Bavaria, whom the city assisted in his war against Frederic the Fair, confirmed (1339) by a Bulla Aurea (golden charter) all the concessions and privileges of Freiburg and granted it an independent municipal court. A serious quarrel arose between the city and Count Egon IV (1358-68), but in 1368 the count gave up all his rights to Freiburg, and the city placed itself voluntarily under the suzerainty of Austria, and for more than five centuries it shared the fortunes of the House of Hapsburg.

As early as 1247, the municipal council calculated the inhabitants to number 4000, and at the end of the fourteenth century the town contained 1778 buildings, twenty of which were monasteries. In 1393 the council was composed of 12 nobles, 12 merchants, 18 guild-masters, and 6 specially elected members of guilds. In 1415, Freiburg which had given refuge to Pope John XXIII (April 10-16) after his flight from Constance, was made a free imperial city (freie Reichsstadt), but was reconquered by the Austrians in 1425. In 1456, Archduke Albert founded its university (see below). The city was afterwards made the seat of government for Hither Austria and attained to a high degree of prosperity, especially during the reign of Maximilian I. Many Renaissance edifices were built, some of which still adorn the city; the famous minster (cathedral) was decorated with fine paintings by Hans Baldung, its choir being consecrated in 1513. The diet of the empire met here in 1498.

The great social and religious disturbances of the sixteenth century exerted a most detrimental influence on the prosperity of the city. In 1524, the rebellious peasants surprised the castle on the Schlossberg, captured the city, and forced the inhabitants to pay tribute. The city council and citizens in general had little sympathy with the Reformation, and, although the new doctrine found some adherents in the beginning, its propagation was effectually hindered by the Austrian Government, the city council, and the university (see ZASIUS, ULRICH). IN 1529, Freiburg became the residence of the cathedral chapter of Basle, driven from that city by the Reformation (see BASLE-LUGANO). In spite of repeated epidemics, the sixteenth century was considered on the whole a prosperous period for the city. The Thirty Years War brought with it much suffering. Freiburg was besieged five times, captured four times and lost about two-thirds of its population by contagious diseases. Hardly had the city recovered from these disasters, when Louis XIV began his predatory wars on Germany. In 1677, Freiburg was taken by the French and converted into a formidable fortress by Vauban. In the course of this transformation, 14 churches and 4 monasteries were demolished. The French supremacy lasted only a short time, and Freiburg was restored to Austria by the Peace of Ryswick in 1697. On two later occasions it was held by the French for a short time, in 1713-14 during the War of the Spanish Succession (1744-48). These two wars destroyed the prosperity of the city so completely that in 1754 the number of its inhabitants sank to 3655, of whom at least one third were in a state of beggary.

Hardly had Freiburg begun to flourish again under Maria Theresa and Joseph II, whose reform measures were executed partly in the Breisgau, when the French Revolution broke out. By the treaty of Campo Formio (1787), Freiburg and all Breisgau was ceded to the Duke of Modena, but a little later, by the Treaty of Pressburg (1805), it reverted to the house of Zähringen. The city swore allegiance to the new Archduke of Baden on 30 Jan., 1806. The new government immediately abolished most of the monasteries and convents, or converted them into educational institutions. It abolished also the ancient representative system of the "estates", or the three ranks of the social order (Clergy, nobles, bourgeois). In 1821, Freiburg became the metropolitan see of the newly-founded province of the Upper Rhine (see BADEN), and in 1827 the first archbishop took possession of the see. In the revolution of 1848-49, Freiburg played an important part, becoming at its close the seat of the provisional revolutionary government. Since then the city has flourished wonderfully; the number of its inhabitants has increased from 25,000 in 1872 to nearly 80,000 at the present time (1909), and its university is attended by 2900 students.

Freiburg is the residence of an archbishop, metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, and is the seat of his ecclesiastical administration, and of one of the deaneries of the diocese. Including the recently incorporated suburbs, the city has now 7 Catholic parishes, one parochial curacy (Pfarrkuratie), 22 churches and chapels; 68 priests; 17 institutions of the Vincentian Sisters of Charity (212 members); 4 houses of the Franciscan Sisters of Charity (39 members); 5 convents of the Sisters of Charity of the Holy Cross (61 members); a theological faculty at the university, an archiepiscopal theological seminary; an archiepiscopal residential gymnasium; a Catholic high school for girls, etc. The most prominent among the numerous charitable institutions conducted by Catholic sisterhoods are: St. Joseph's Hospital; St. Charles' Home (for pensioners); St. Ann's Home, for women engaged in business; St. Mary's Home, for servant girls, with employment bureau; St. Francis' Home for the aged; St. Elizabeth's Home (house-keeping and boarding school); Home for Apprentices and Journeymen, etc. Catholic sisters are also in charge of a number of institutions belonging to the municipality, for example the Hospital of the Holy Ghost, the Home for Beneficed Clergymen, the Kartause (poor-house), the People's Kitchen, the orphan asylum in Günterstal, and the large clinical hospital connected with the university. They also conduct two kindergartens, four industrial schools, two house-keeping schools, and five schools for small children.

The minster, one of the few existing Gothic cathedrals, completed in the Middle Ages, ranks first among the city churches. Its oldest parts, the transept and the intersection of nave and transept, were constructed during the thirteenth century in Romanesque style. The new part (Early Gothic) was begun in 1250, when the corner-stone of the tower (380 feet) was laid, and was completed in the fourteenth century. In 1354, the choir (Late Gothic) was begun, but operations were suspended in 1370, and resumed only after a lapse of one hundred years. In 1513, the cathedral was practically finished. The minster is rich in art treasures, of which the most notable are: the painting over the main altar by Hans Baldung (1511-17); the choir-chapel with paintings by the elder Lucas Cranach and Hans Holbein (the Elder and the Younger); the artistic windows in the side-aisles, dating in part from the fourteenth century; lastly the decorations in the vestibule with an aggregate of over 200 figures, one of the most elaborate examples of medieval theological symbolism and popularly attributed to Albert the Great. Among the other churches are: St. Martin's (Gothic) erected for the Franciscans during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, renovated and ornamented with a tower, 1876-93 (Hansjakob, St. Martin zu Freiburg im Breisgau als Kloster und Pfarrei, Freiburg, 1890); the University church (1630-40), erected by the Jesuits (Baroque) and used by the Old Catholics, 1875-94; the church of the Sacred Heart, erected 1892-97 (Later Romanesque and Rhenish Transition style); St. John's (1894-99); St. Michael's Chapel in the old cemetery (1744), the vestibule of which is decorated with a remarkable "Dance of Death".

THE ARCHDIOCESE

Statistics

It includes the Grand Duchy of Baden, the Hohenzollern possessions of the Prussian Crown, bounded by Baden and Würtemberg, together with some few places in Würtemberg. The Catholic population is 1,263,280, according to the census of 1905. The suffragans of Freiburg are the Bishops of Fulda, Limburg, Mainz, and Rottenburg. The archbishop is elected by the cathedral chapter, but the names of the candidates must be submitted to the sovereign, who has the right to cancel the names of candidates not acceptable to him, provided that a sufficient number remain on the list to allow a choice. The cathedral chapter consists of the dean [at present (1909) the auxiliary bishop Dr. Fr. Justus Knecht, titular Bishop of Nebo], 6 canons and 6 prebendaries. The ordinariate consists of the archbishop, the members of the chapter, of 2 other priests and 2 laymen. The ordinariate is the archiepiscopal metropolitan court; the archiepiscopal diocesan court is termed the officialate (6 members). The church property is administered, partly by the ordinariate and partly by the civil body known as the Catholic "Oberstiftungsrat" at Karlsruhe (see BADEN). The pastoral work of the archdiocese is carried on by two incorporated parishes (the cathedral parish of Freiburg and the parish of Sankt Peter), and by 43 deaneries (4 in Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen), with 911 parishes and parochial curacies (Pfarrkuratien), 116 chaplaincies and 165 other pastoral charges.

In January, 1909, the secular clergy of the archdiocese consisted of 904 rectors and curates, 281 chaplains and vicars, 106 other active priests (professors, teachers, editors, etc.), 107 priests retired or on leave of absence: a total of 1398, besides 80 regular priests. The diocesan institutions for the education of the clergy are: the seminary in the former Benedictine monastery of Sankt Peter; the theological seminary in Freiburg, whose students frequent the university; and the 5 archiepiscopal gymnasia of Freiburg, Constance, Rastatt, Tauberbischofsheim and Sigmaringen. In the university, eleven priests and professors of Catholic theology and their lectures were attended in the summer-semester of 1909 by 224 students. Male religious orders are excluded from Baden proper by civil law. In the Hohenzollern section of the archdiocese, there are three monasteries for men: the Benedictines at Beuron (61 priests, 9 clerics, and 89 lay brothers), the Franciscans at Gorheim (12 priests, 12 clerics, and 10 lay brothers), and the mission house of the White Fathers at Haigerloch (47 fathers and 6 lay brothers). The religious institutions for women are: the Ladies of the Holy Sepulchre with an academy in Baden-Baden (40 sisters); the Benedictine Sisters in Habsthal, Hohenzollern (20 sisters); the Dominican Sisters with an academy in Constance (53 sisters); the Cistercians with an academy in Lichtenthal (54 sisters); the Choir Sisters of St. Augustine with an academy in Offenburg and one branch (43 sisters); the Ursulines with an academy in Villingen and in Breisach (40 sisters); the Vincentian Sisters of Charity, including the mother-house in Freiburg, 151 convents (all in Baden), with 900 sisters; the Franciscan Sisters of Charity with mother-house at Gengenbach, 154 houses (all in Baden) and 727 sisters; the Sisters of Charity of the Holy Cross from Ingenbohl (Switzerland), mother-house in Hegne near Constanz, 134 houses and 728 sisters (3 convents, 20 sisters in Hohenzollern); the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (from Strasburg) 11 convents, 72 sisters (7 houses with 50 sisters in Hohenzollern); the Sisters of Charity of Our Blessed Saviour from the mother-house in Oberbronn (Alsace), 57 convents (all in Baden) and 410 sisters; the Sisters of Charity of St. Francis from the mother-house in Mallersdorf (Bavaria), 2 houses in Baden, 18 sisters; the Sisters of Charity of St. Joseph from St. Marx (Alsace), 18 convents in Baden and 52 sisters; the Sisters of Charity of St. Francis from the mother-house in Limpertsberg (Luxemburg), 16 convents in Baden and 64 sisters; the Sisters of Charity of St. Francis (mother-house in Oberzell near Würzburg), 1 convent in Baden and 2 sisters; the Sisters of Christian Love (mother-house in Paderborn), 1 convent in Hohenzollern and 7 sisters. These sisters conduct numerous charitable works: 428 institutions for outdoor nursing, 98 hospitals, 17 endowed homes (Pfründenhäuser), 13 poor-houses, 7 crèches or infant asylums, 236 kindergarten schools, 56 orphanages, 4 business-girls' homes, 12 servant-girls' homes, 13 homes for working-women, 10 high-schools for girls, 12 schools of domestic economy, 121 industrial schools, 6 evening schools, 1 institution for the manufacture of church vestments, 7 peoples' kitchens, 4 apprentices' and journeymen's homes, 6 homes for girls, 19 homes for the care of the sick and aged.

General statistics relative to the Catholic associations of the archdiocese are lacking. The most notable among these societies are: St. Boniface Society (Bonifatiusverein), which had an income of over $130,000 in 1907, and ranks first (financially) among all diocesan societies; the Volksverein for Catholic Germany; Catholic "Gesellenvereine" or journeymen's unions with branches in 56 different localities; the Catholic Workmen's Society with 154 branches; the Catholic Workwomen's Society, 8 branches; the Catholic Apprentices' and Young Men's Society, 38 branches; the Vincentian Society; Society of St. Charles Borromeo; Congregation of Mary, for boys and girls; the Infant Jesus Society; Society of the Holy Family, etc. The archdiocese has 30 Catholic newspapers and periodicals. The most important churches of the Grand Duchy have been mentioned in the article BADEN; the most important churches in Hohenzollern are those of Haigerloch, Hechingen and Sigmaringen.

History

The foundation and history of the archdiocese have been treated exhaustively under BADEN; also, the relations between the Church and the State (II, 195-200). It only remains to add a few remarks concerning the Hohenzollern section of the archdiocese.

The two principalities, Hohenzollern-Hechingen and Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, which formerly belonged to the Diocese of Constance, were joined to the Archdiocese of Freiburg, when the province of the Upper Rhine was created by the concordats of 18-27 Oct., and 14-21 Nov., 1821. Both princes had pledged themselves to carry out the Josephist principles which then prevailed in the other states of the Upper Rhine province, though they were the only Catholic sovereigns of the province and reigned over an almost exclusively Catholic population. Both governments consequently exercised all the rights which Febronianism and Josephinism claimed for the secular government as its inalienable jus circa sacra, and restricted ecclesiastical authority as much as possible. The "Regium Placet", or civil control of papal and episcopal decrees, was rigorously enforced. Taxes and contributions for the pope and "foreign" ecclesiastical superiors were prohibited; the archbishop's jurisdiction was held subordinate even in spiritual matters to the civil authority; the cathedral chapter was placed in a position of administrative equality with the bishop, and even episcopal acts were subjected to the most scrutinizing supervision and arbitrary control of the civil power (jus supremæ inspectionis). The government, especially in Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, sought to secure a predominating influence in matters concerning divine worship, marriages (by introducing the Josephist matrimonial legislation), the education and pastoral duties of the clergy, appointments to ecclesiastical benefices, and the administration and employment of church property. Furthermore, it compelled the clergy, monasteries, and confraternities to contribute to the support of higher and elementary education and charitable institutions. The Hohenzollern princes, however, were well disposed towards the Church, hence these pretensions of the civil power were enforced much less rigorously in their principalities than in the Baden section of the archdiocese and other parts of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine.

The innovations of Wessenberg (Vicar-General of the Diocese of Constance, and, until 1827, acknowledged as such by both Hohenzollern and Baden governments, despite the protests of the pope) affected the liturgy, processions, pilgrimages, confraternities, the number of holidays of obligation, and included the introduction of the German language into the Mass and also the so-called liturgical confession and communion. To the credit of the Hohenzollern princes, it must be said that they hindered rather than promoted these innovations, which are so alien from the true spirit of the Church. In various other ways, also, these princes were helpful to the interests of the Church. They assisted the ecclesiastical authorities to bring up a moral and zealous clergy, regulated by decrees the observance of Sunday, strove in union with the Church to suppress immorality, made a strong stand against the pietistic movement which originated in the Haigerloch deanery, and opposed the spread of the rationalistic book entitled "Stunden der Andacht" (Hours of Devotion). They also bound the clergy to give catechetical instruction regularly in the schools. In general, however, though no violence was used to enforce the principles of Josephinism, the activity of the Church was in many ways restricted and paralyzed; her property rights, above all, were greatly interfered with. The wrongs committed in this respect were so great that the clergy, most of whom had been brought up in the principles of Febronianism and Josephinism, and many of whom favoured the abolition of the breviary and of celibacy, presented an unavailing petition to the government in 1831 for gentler treatment.

The situation became more favourable, when in 1849 these two principalities were by treaty annexed to Prussia under King Frederick William IV. Thanks to the king's friendly disposition towards the Church and the untiring efforts of Archbishop Hermann von Vicari, the Catholics of Hohenzollern soon secured the same liberties as those then allowed to the Prussian Catholics. The Church was permitted to erect monasteries, and to re-establish fraternities. Missions were again held, pilgrimages became more popular and a general revival of religious life took place. Unfortunately the Kulturkampf, though originating in Prussia, was also felt in Hohenzollern, now part of the Prussian Kingdom, although the so-called May Laws and other persecuting enactments were not enforced there so strictly as in Prussia proper. The Benedictine monastery at Beuron, the Jesuit novitiate at Gorheim near Sigmaringen, and the Franciscan convent at Stetten near Hechingen were suppressed; the teaching sisters, the Sisters of Christian Charity, and the Sisters of the Holy Cross (Ingenbohl) were expelled. It was forbidden to appoint or install any more parish priests, curates, etc. Two temporary rectors of churches, appointed in spite of this prohibition, were imprisoned, and Lothar von Kübel, after Vicari's death administrator of the archdiocese for 14 years, was heavily fined for appointing priests to vacant parishes. Most of the clergy were deprived of the right of local school-inspection, but, in virtue of an old law (1809), were permitted to give religious instruction. At the close of the Kulturkampf, better relations were developed between Church and State, and continue in general to the present day.

THE UNIVERSITY

For the foundation of its university Freiburg is indebted to Archduke Albrecht VI of Austria, who was entrusted by his brother, Emperor Frederick III, with the government of the Further Austrian territories. The idea was first conceived by Mechtild, the accomplished wife of Albrecht, and it was at her suggestion that he resolved to found the university, having obtained the sanction of Callistus III in the Bull of 20 April, 1455. The revenue of the university was ensured by the foundation of several benefices, and the incorporation of the cathedral parish of Freiburg, together with the parishes of Breisach, Ensisheim, and other places, in the new institution (Deed of 28 August, 1456), this endowment being approved by Frederick III. The town also made considerable contributions, although the foundation-brief of 21 September, 1457, granted the new university its own jurisdiction and immunity from taxation for its members. The real work of organization and the preparation of the constitution fell on the erudite Matthaeus Hummel of Villingen, and it was entirely due to his untiring zeal that the university could be opened with seven lecturers (four being theologians) on 26 April, 1460. Matthaeus was solemnly elected in the cathedral as first rector, and, despite the initial modesty of the institution and the fewness of its lecturers, the university was attended during the first year of its academic existence by two hundred and fourteen students (including one hundred and eight theologians), the majority of whom were from the Diocese of Constance, from Bavaria, Burgundy, and Lorraine.

The supreme authority over the university was vested in the rector, who was elected by the professorate for a single term. In the preservation of academical discipline, the rector was assisted by the senate (also called the consistory or regency), which usually comprised the preceding rector and three counsellors. Of the four faculties at the "Albertina", the faculty of arts was the most important. The course usually lasted three years, and included logic, dialectics, physics, mathematics, Aristotle and the peripatetics, poetry and oratory being added in 1471 and Greek in 1521. The most important lectures of this faculty during the first century of the university's existence were: Gregorius Reisch, a Carthusian, the teacher of Johann Eck and author of the "Margarita Philosophica", which treated of the totality of knowledge at the time; Jacob Locher, called Philomusus, who translated Brant's "Narrenschiff" (Ship of Fools) into Latin; Philip Engelbrecht of Engen (Engentinus), a poet and a secret follower of Luther; Henricus Loriti, called Glareanus, the renowned Latinist, musician, and geographer; John Hartung, professor of Greek and Hebrew. In the theological faculty, which usually employed three lecturers in the sixteenth century, taught (at least for a short period) the following eminent scholars: Geiler of Kaisersberg, one of the university's earliest students; Johann Eck; Thomas Murner; Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had however never studied there, etc. The faculty of law, to which six regular professors were assigned in the sixteenth century, was long famous throughout Europe, thanks to Ulrich Zasius, the founder of modern political science. At this period three professors constituted the medical faculty, whose statutes had been sketched by Hummel himself. As a rule the students lived with their professors in residences or boarding-houses (the so-called Bursen), of which there were seven at Freiburg, including the "Alte Burse", the "Domus Carthusiana", and the "Collegium Sapientiæ". The university having attained so rapidly to renown, it was but natural that many of its professors should have been appointed to offices of high intellectual importance. From Freiburg the Chapter of Augsburg chose two, and Vienna three of its prince-bishops; the Chapters of Constance, Augsburg, Basle, and Speyer many of their suffragans, and the University of Vienna one of its chancellors.

During the widespread confusion of the Reformation period which exercised so deleterious an effect on many of the German universities, Freiburg succeeded by its judicious and cautious attitude in maintaining its ground. It is indeed a fact that several of its professors were in correspondence with Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin; that many others were suspected of favouring their innovations; that the senate itself censured Glareanus for inveighing so fiercely against Luther, Oecolampadius, and the other reformers in his lectures; still the university in general remained true to the ancient Faith, and through its influence the town became a bulwark of Catholicism. The university refused henceforth to enrol any students who had studied in Wittenberg or Leipzig, and after 1567 only those who declared on oath their acceptance of the Tridentine Confession of Faith were admitted. To secure a still more Catholic atmosphere, Archduke Ferdinand invited the Jesuits in 1577 to found a college in Freiburg, and to incorporate it in the university. This scheme, however, aroused such energetic opposition, especially from Jodocus Lorichius, professor of theology and founder of the Collegium Pacis (Burse zum Frieden) that it had to be laid aside. On 5 November, 1520, shortly after the outbreak of the Thirty Years War, the Jesuits were introduced into the university on the strength of a fiat of Archduke Leopold in spite of the opposition of the senate, and entrusted with the whole faculty of arts and temporarily with two of the theological chairs. From the rectorship and quæstorship, however, they were excluded, although the cathedral pulpit was soon resigned into their hands. The most renowned of the Jesuit professor at Freiburg was the astronomer, Christopher Scheiner, who left Freiburg finally in 1630. The frequent change of the fathers was indeed injurious to the university, at which too many remained but a very short time; thus, in the faculty of arts alone, no fewer than 123 different Jesuits were employed as lecturers during the 153 years preceding the suppression of the order.

The seventeenth century, especially the Thirty Years War and the predatory wars of Louis XIV, brought the university to the brink of ruin. Almost all its funded property was lost, as well as a great portion of its income from the parishes, now sadly impoverished by pillage and fire. The professors were frequently compelled to wait years for their stipend, and in 1648 the number of students had fallen to 46. Emperor Leopold was the first to take steps to remove the financial difficulties, but, when the town was ceded to the French by the Peace of Nimwegen (1679), the majority of the professors and students migrated to Constance. The Jesuit Fathers remained and opened in 1684 a studium gallicanum under the patronage of Louis XIV, but it was not until some years later that the old personnel of the university could initiate academic courses in Constance. After the Peace of Ryswik (1697), the professorate returned from Constance to Freiburg, when the old contentions, which had so often broken out between the university and the Society of Jesus, were settled by the so-called "Viennese Transaction" of forty articles. According to this agreement, the Jesuits were still excluded from the rectorate, and were refused the precedence, which they had claimed; on the other hand they received the building of the "Alte Burse", which they had previously occupied, as their private property, and in addition an increased annual stipend, as well as all arrears of salary.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the outlook of the university was far from hopeful, and in 1713 the members were compelled to secede once more to Constance, returning in 1715. Emperor Charles VI later increased the revenue of the university, whose staff again included many illustrious professors -- the jurists Stapf, Egermayer, Waizenegger, and Reinhart; the physicians Blau, Strobel, and Baader; the Jesuits Nicasius Grammatici and Steinmayer -- but the university never reached the educational level of the halcyon days of the sixteenth century. After the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, their college buildings together with their church (built 1630-40) and Gymnasium Academicum were annexed in 1777 by Empress Maria Theresa to the university. The importance of the Albertina waxed greater with the increasing prosperity of the country. The new curriculum of studies, which Maria Theresa caused to be drawn up for the higher educational institutions of her dominions, was introduced into Freiburg, in 1767, and at first met with much opposition. Although this action of the university led to the withdrawal of many of its ancient privileges (e. g., its governmental independence), it paved the way for a more intimate connexion between the university and the government, and from this period dates the adoption of a more reasonable attitude by both parties.

The transformation of Further Austrian Breisgau to the House of Zähringen by the Peace of Pressburg (1805) seemed to menace greatly the position of Freiburg, since the new inconsiderable State of Baden possessed already in Heidelberg an older and more famous university. Thanks to the zealous efforts of the professors and town of Freiburg, however, their university was retained, and in 1807 the elector himself accepted the office of rector. Since then, the sovereign has always been "rector magnificentissimus" of the university, and confirms the annual election by the ordinary professors of the pro-rector to exercise the office of rectorship in his name. In 1816 the university was again threatened with dissolution, but the danger was obviated principally through the influence of Karl von Rotteck. The independence of the university was, however, seriously curtailed, and the curriculum reformed after the model of Heidelberg, for which purpose the revenue, which had fallen very low, was increased by a annual State grant amounting at first to 15,000 gulden. The attendance varied between 270 and 320 students. In 1818 the university sent one representative to the newly-created diet, at which von Rotteck, the historian, was its deputy for many years. In consequence of the opposition between the professors and the town, the university was closed in 1832 for a short period, of which the government took advantage to recognize the previous republican constitutions on a more oligarchical basis. The retention or relinquishment of the university was also the subject of debate; indeed, for thirty years the danger of dissolution lay ever threatening. The Revolution occasioned a brief closing of the university in May, 1849. In 1857 the solemn celebration of its 400th anniversary was held in the presence of the sovereign. The efforts of the Catholic party to restore to the university its initial purely Catholic character by securing for the archbishop, not alone a deciding voice in the appointment of theological professors, but also a certain right of supervision over the other faculties, were rendered ineffectual through the rejection of the concordat between Rome and the government by the Diet of Baden in 1859. Since then the Catholic characteristics of the university both in its professors and in its students, who are recruited mainly from North Germany, have become gradually impaired. When, after the establishment of the German Empire, a new university was founded in Strasburg, a serious decay of Freiburg was anticipated. Fortunately these forebodings proved to be groundless, since, while the number of students in 1872 was only 272 -- a figure which does not exceed the attendance during the first century of the university's existence -- it exceeded 1000 in 1885, 1500 in 1898, 2000 in 1904, and 2600 in 1908, thus placing Freiburg fifth in the list of German universities as regards attendance.

Of the many scholars, who shed a lustre on the name of Freiburg at the close of the eighteenth and during the nineteenth centuries, the following (excluding those still living) may be mentioned; the theologians Engelbert Klüpfel, Johann Leonhard Hug, Heinrich Schreiber, historian of the town and University of Freiburg, Alban Stolz, the renowned popular author, and Franz Xaver Kraus, who wrote on the history of the Church and of fine arts; the jurists Jodocus Riegger, Johann Caspar Ruef; the statesman Joseph Buss, Gustav Rümelin, who for many years represented the university in the first diet; the philologists and philosophers, Johann Georg Jacobi and Anton Baumstark; the physicians and scientists, Alexander Ecker, Adolf Kussmaul, Alfred Hegar, Anton de Bary.

The University of Freiburg at present contains four faculties: that of Catholic theology, that of law and political science, that of medicine, and that of philosophy, the last-mentioned being subdivided into philological-historical and mathematico-physical. At the beginning of 1909, the teaching staff consisted of 140 lecturers: 11 theologians, 16 jurists and political economists, 50 physicians, 43 in the first division of the philosophical faculty and 30 in the second. In the summer term of 1908 Freiburg was attended by over 2600 students, and in the winter term (1908-09) by 1966 matriculated (including 67 women) and 153 private students. Of the sixty institutions connected with the university the most important are the large medical infirmaries (surgical, gynæcological, psychiatrical, optical) and general clinical hospitals; the physical, geological, botanical, and zoological institutes; the academical reading-rooms. The university library contains 300,000 volumes, a large number of which belonged to the old cloister-libraries, and 700 manuscripts. The majority of the institutes possess excellent special libraries. The property of the university consists partly of invested capital to the value of 1,300,000 marks (about 300,000 dollars), and partly of unremunerative capital (e. g., the university buildings, etc.) to the value of 2,800,000 or, allowing for certain outstanding liabilities, 2,380,000 marks. According to the budget of 1908-09, its income was 1,075,300 marks, of which 958,500 was paid by the state. The expenditure, which equalled the income, was as follows: 475,600 marks for salaries of regular professors and officials; 132,200 for the extraordinary staff; 335,900 for the different institutions, and the remainder for sundry expenses.

THE CITY.--For a complete bibliography of the city of Freiburg see KIENITZ AND WAGNER, Litteratur der Landes- und Volkskunde des Grossherzogtums Baden (Karlsruhe, 1901), II, 308-348; and, for the historiography of the city, ALBERT, Die Geschichtschreibung der Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau in alter und neuer Zeit (Freiburg, 1902). Important works are: SCHREIBER, Urkundenbuch der Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau (1828-66); IDEM, Gesch. der Stadt und Universität Freiburg (1857-60); IDEM, Freiburg mit seinen Umgebungen (3rd ed., 1840); BADER, Gesch. der Stadt Freiburg (1882-83); KIEPERT, Freiburg in Wort und Bild (1889); POINSIGNON AND FLAMM, Geschichtliche Ortsbeschreibung der Stadt Freiburg (1891 and 1904); SCHÄFER, Das alte Freiburg (1895); Freiburg im Breisgau, die Stadt und ihre Bauten, published by the SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS of Baden (1898); BAUMGARTEN, Freiburg im Br. und Umgebung (Stuttgart, 1906). Valuable contributions are met with in the following periodicals: Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft, etc. for the history, antiquities, and popular customs of Freiburg and vicinity (since 1867); Schauinsland (since 1873); Zeitschrift f. d. Gesch. des Oberrheins (since 1850); Freiburger Address-Kalender (since 1817). For the minster, see GEIGES, Unserer Lieben Frauen Münster zu Freiburg (illustrated; Freiburg, 1897); IDEM, Der alte Fensterschmuck des Freiburger Münsters (1902); KEMPF AND SCHUSTER, Das Freiburger Münster (1906); BAUMGARTEN, Das Freiburger Münster (Stuttgart, 1906); Freiburger Münsterblätter (Freiburg, since 1905, half-yearly).

THE ARCHDIOCESE.--For bibliography see KIENITZ AND WAGNER, Litteratur der Landes- und Volkskunde des Grossherzogtums Baden, I, 244-83. Important works: LONGNER, Beiträge zur Gesch. der oberrheinischen Kirchenprovinz (Tübingen, 1863); BRÜCK, Die oberrheinische Kirchenprovinz (Mainz, 1868); FRIEDBERG, Der Staat und die kathol. Kirche im Grossherzogtum Baden (2d ed., Leipzig, 1874); HEINER, Gesetze die kathol. Kirche (in Baden) betreffend (Freiburg, 1890); IDEM, Die kirchlichen Erlasse, Verordnungen u. Bekanntmachungen der Erzdiöcese Freiburg (2d. ed., 1898); MAAS, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche im Grossherzogtum Baden (1891); MEYER, Der Orden d. Barmherzigen Schwestern vom hl. Vincenz v. Paul in der Erzdiöcese Freiburg (1896); MEISTER, Das Beamtenrecht der Erzdiöcese Freiburg (Stuttgart, 1904); RÖSCH, Die Beziehungen der Staatsgewalt zur kathol. Kirche in den beiden hohenzollernschen Fürstentümern 1800-1850 (Sigmaringen, 1906); IDEM, Das religiöse Leben in Hohenzollern unter dem Einflusse des Wessenbergianismus, 1800-1850 (Cologne, 1908); LAUER, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Baden (Freiburg, 1908); VON FUNK in Kirchenlexikon, IX, 593-612; Die kathol. Kirche und ihre Diener, II; Personalschematismus (yearly), Realschematismus der Erzdiöcese Freiburg (1863), new edition in preparation. For the churches of the archdiocese see KRAUS, Kunstdenkmäler d. Grossherzogtums Baden (Freiburg, since 1887, 8 vols.); ZINGELER AND LAUR, Die Bau- und Kunst-Denkmäler in den Hohenzollernschen Landen (Stuttgart, 1896). Periodicals: Freiburger Diözesanarchiv (Freiburg, since 1865, annual; vol. XXIX has a complete ecclesiastico-historical bibliography of the archdiocese); Zeitschrift für Gesch. des Oberrheins (1850-1908); Freiburger Katholisches Kirchenblatt (1857-89); Oberrheinisches Pastoralblatt (Freiburg, since 1890).

THE UNIVERSITY.--A complete list of the literature dealing with the university is contained in ERMAN AND HORN, Bibliographie der deutschen Universitäten II (Leipzig, 1904), 195-213. The most important works are: RIEGGER, Analecta academiæ Friburgensis (Freiburg, 1774 and 1779); IDEM, Imagines, Sigilla atque nonnulla alia monumenta Academiæ Friburgensis (Freiburg, 1778); SCHRIBER, Geschichte der Albert -Ludwigs-Universität (3 vols., Freiburg, 1857-60); Die Universität Freiburg seit dem Regierungsantritt Grossherzog Friedrichs (Freiburg, 1881); PFISTER, Die finanziellen Verhältnisse der Universität Freiburg (Freiburg, 1881); MAYER, Die Universität Freiburg im Br. in der ersten Hälfte des 19 Jahrhunderts (3 parts, Bonn, 1892-94); KÖNIG in Freiburger Diöcesan-Archiv., vols. XXI, XXII, XXIV, and XXVII; KAUFMANN, Geschichte der deutschen Universitäten, II (Stuttgart, 1895); MAYER, Die Matrikel der Universität Freiburg im Br. vom 1460-1656, I (Freiburg, 1907); BAUMGARTEN, Freiburg im Breisgau in Die deutschen Hochschulen, I (Berlin, 1907).

JOSEPH LINS

Fréjus

DIOCESE OF FRÉJUS (FORUM JULII).

Suffragan of Aix; comprises the whole department of Var (France). It was suppressed by the Concordat of 1801, re-established by that of 1817, and definitively established in 1823. The arrondissement of Grasse, which until 1860 belonged to the department of Var, when it was annexed to that of the Alpes-Maritimes, was, in 1886, separated from the Diocese of Fréjus and attached to that of Nice. A Brief of 1852 authorized the bishop to assume the title of Bishop of Fréjus and Toulon. The present diocese comprises the territory of the ancient Diocese of Fréjus as well as that of the ancient Diocese of Toulon.

I. FRÉJUS

Christianity would seem to have been introduced into Fréjus in the time of Emperor Constantine. History relates that in 374 a certain Acceptus falsely declared himself guilty of some crimes in order to rid himself of the episcopal dignity, and that the Council of Valencia besought the Church to name another in his stead. The following are named among the bishops of this see: St. Leontius (419-433), brother of St. Castor and friend of John Cassian, who dedicated to him his first ten "Collationes", and of St. Honoratus, founder of the monastery of Lérins; Theodore (433-455), Abbot of the Iles d'Hyères, to whom Cassian dedicated the last seven "Collationes"; St. Auxilius (c. 475), formerly a monk of Lérins, and later a martyr under Euric, Arian King of the Visigoths; Riculfus (973-1000), who restored the ruins made by the Saracens, and built the cathedral and the episcopal palace; Bertrand (1044-91), who founded the collegiate church of Barjols; Raymond Berengarius (1235-1248), who arranged the marriage of Beatrice, daughter of the Count of Provence, with Charles of Anjou; Jacques d'Euse (1300-1310), preceptor of St. Louis of Toulouse, and later pope under the name of John XXII; Cardinal Nicolò Fieschi (1495-1524), who at the time of his death was dean of the Sacred College; André-Hercule de Fleury (1698-1715).

II. TOULON

The legend which states that a certain Cleon, who accompanied St. Lazarus to Gaul was the founder of the Church of Toulon, is based on an apocryphal document composed in the fourteenth century and ascribed to a sixth-century bishop named Didier. Honoratus and Gratianus, according to the "Gallia Christiana" were the first bishops of Toulon whose names are known to history, but Duchesne gives Augustalis as the first historical bishop. He assisted at councils in 441 and 442 and signed in 449 and 450 the letters addressed to Pope Leo I from the province of Arles. St. Cyprian, disciple and biographer of St. Cæsarius of Arles, is also mentioned as a Bishop of Toulon. His episcopate, begun in 524, had not come to an end in 541; he converted to Catholicism the Visigoth chiefs, Mandrier and Flavian, who became anchorites and martyrs on the peninsula of Mandrier.

The Island of Lérins, well known as the site of the celebrated monastery founded there in 410 (see LÉrins) was sold in 1859 by the Bishop of Fréjus to an English purchaser. A number of the saints of Lérins are especially honoured in the diocese. Among them are Sts. Honoratus, Cæsarius, Hilary, and Virgilius, all of whom became archbishops of Arles; Quinidius, Bishop of Vaison; Valerius, Bishop of Nice; Maximus, Bishop of Riez; Veranus and Lambertus, Bishops of Vence; Vincent of Lérins, author of the "Commonitorium", and his brother Lupus, Bishop of Troyes; Agricola, Bishop of Avignon; Aigulphus and Porcarius, martyrs. St. Tropesius, martyr during the persecution of Nero; St. Louis (1274-1297), a native of Brignoles, in the Diocese of Toulon, and later Archbishop of Toulouse; and the virgin St. Roseline, prioress of the monastery of La Celle-Roubaud, who died in 1329, and whose shrine, situated at Les Arcs near Draguignan, has been for six centuries a place of pilgrimage, are likewise especially honoured in the diocese. The sojourn in 1482 of St. Francis of Paula at Bormes and at Fréjus, where he caused the cessation of the plague, made a lasting impression. The chief places of pilgrimage in the Diocese of Fréjus and Toulon are those of Notre-Dame des Anges at Pignans, the chapel which King Thierry established in 508, for the veneration of a statue of the Blessed Virgin recovered by a shepherd and which, it was said, had been brought to Pignans by St. Nympha, niece of St. Maximinus and the companion of St. Mary Magdalen; Notre-Dame de Bénat, a shrine dating from the sixteenth century; Notre-Dame de Grâces at Cotignac, which dates from 1519, and later served by some priests who formed themselves into a religious community under the rule of St. Philip Neri, and were the first Oratorians in France. In 1637, as the result of an apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Frère Fiacre, Louis XIII and Anne of Austria sent him to Cotignac to offer up prayers. Anne of Austria became the mother of Louis XIV, and in 1660 he went in solemn state to Cotignac to return thanks to Notre-Dame de Grâces.

The church of St. Maximinus, begun towards the end of the thirteenth century by Charles II of Sicily and completed by the end of the fifteenth century, is the most beautiful example of pointed architecture in the south of France. The head of St. Mary Magdalen is honoured here, and the crypt contains tombs which date from the first centuries of the Christian Era. (For an account of the traditions on this subject, see LAZARUS and MARY MAGDALEN.) The celebrated preacher Massillon (1663-1742) was born at Hyères in this diocese. In 1905 (last year of the Concordat) the diocese numbered 326,384 inhabitants, 28 parishes, 142 succursal parishes, and 67 vicariates paid by the State. Before the enforcement of the law against the congregations in 1901 there were in the diocese communities of Trappists, Capuchins, Carthusians, Dominicans, Marists, Salesians, and Sulpicians. An important diocesan congregation founded in 1838, for teaching and hospital work, was that of Notre-Dame de la Miséricorde, the mother-house of which was at Draguignan. Before the law of 1901 the religious congregations possessed in the diocese 2 foundling asylums, 36 day nurseries, a seaside hospital for sick children, 2 orphanages for boys, situated in the country, 9 orphanages for girls, 6 workhouses, 2 houses of rescue, 3 houses of charity for the assistance of the poor, 30 hospitals or hospices, 2 houses of retreat, 7 religious houses for the care of the sick in their homes.

Gallia Christiana, Nova (1715), I, 418-447, 739-762; Instrumenta, 82-85, 129-131; ALBAN'S, Gallia Christiana novissima (Montbéliard, 1899); DUCHESNE, Fastes Episcopaux, I, 269-276; ESPITALIER, Les évêques de Fréjus (Draguignan, 1891-1898); LAMBERT, Histoire de Toulon (Toulon, 1892); DISDIER, Description historique du diocèse de Fréjus, d'aprés les manuscrits de Girardin et d'Antelmy (Draguignan, 1872); FOUGEIRET, Sanctuaires anciens et modernes de la Très-Sainte Vierge dans les diocèses de Fréjus et de Toulon (Toulon, 1891); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., 1240, 3125.

GEORGES GOYAU

James Fremin

Jesuit missionary to the American Indians; b. at Reims, 12 March, 1628; d. at Quebec, 2 July, 1691. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1646 and in 1655 set out for the Onondaga mission in Canada to devote the rest of his life to the evangelization of the savages. At the invitation of a Cayuga chieftain he set out, in 1666, for Lake Tiohero, near the present Cayuga, but his stay there was of short duration. The next year he was sent to revive the mission founded by Father Jogues among the Mohawk and, on his way, instituted the first Catholic settlement in Vermont, on Isle La Motte. Arriving at Tinnontoguen, the Mohawk capital, he rapidly acquired the language and by his courage and kindness won the respect of his savage charges. Unfortunately, the Mohawk did not readily respond to his efforts, and his chief care seems to have been to attend to the Huron captives who were already Christianized.

In October, 1668, Father Fremin proceeded to the Seneca country, but the war then being waged with the Ottawa and the Susquehanna prevented many conversions. In August, 1669, he left for Onondaga to preside at a general meeting of the missionary priests, but shortly returned to Gannougare to resume his work among the captive Huron. The high repute he had gained among the various tribes was responsible for his recall, in 1670, to take charge of La Prairie, the Christian settlement near Montreal where the converted Indians had been gathered, and it was he who placed this refuge on a solid footing and eliminated the liquor traffic. From that time on, with the exception of several voyages to France in the interest of the mission, he devoted himself exclusively to the work of preserving in the Faith those Indians who had been baptized, and, despite the persistent efforts of the tribes from which the converts came, he was able to prevent any serious defection. He died worn out by his long apostolate, having been the means of bringing over ten thousand Indians into the Church.

CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1908); Jesuit Relations; HOLMES in Handbook of American Indians, s.v. Caughnawaga (Washington, 1907).

STANLEY J. QUINN

Nicholas French

Bishop of Ferns, Ireland, b. at Ballytory, Co. Wexford, in 1604, his parents being John French and Christina Rosseter; d. at Ghent, 23 Aug., 1678. He studied at Louvain and appears to have been president of one of the colleges there, and on his return to Ireland in 1640 he was appointed parish priest of Wexford. During the Confederation War in Ireland he joined the Confederate party and took an active part in the deliberations of the Kilkenny Assembly. He was appointed Bishop of Ferns and was consecrated in November, 1645. Though opposed to the party of Preston he favoured the peace of 1648 against the Nuncio Rinuccini, but in the synod at Jamestown in 1650, he bitterly opposed the Ormond faction. In 1651 he went on a deputation to the Duke of Lorraine to solicit his assistance against Cromwell, and to offer him the protectorship of Ireland, but this mission having proved a failure he remained on the Continent. It is not clear whether it was at this particular period or later that he officiated for a while as coadjutor Bishop of Paris. He retired to Santiago in Spain, where he assisted the Archbishop of Santiago, and where he wrote his book, "Lucubrations of the Bishop of Ferns in Spain." At the Restoration period he was about to return to Ireland, but being greatly disliked by Ormond on account of his attitude at the conference at Jamestown, the permission that had been given was withdrawn, and he remained in different parts of the Continent, notably at Paris and Ghent. During this portion of his life he published many pamphlets on Irish affairs, which are extremely valuable for the elucidation of the history from the outbreak of the war till 1675. In his last years he appears to have officiated as assistant to the Bishop of Ghent, and in that city he died, aged seventy-three years. There, too, a magnificent monument was raised to his memory.

He was a man of great literary activity as is evident from his numerous works. Besides a course of philosophy still in manuscript in March's Library, Dublin, he published "Queeres propound by the Protestant Party in Ireland concerning the peace now treated of in Ireland" (Paris, 1644); "A Narrative of Clarendon's Sale and Settlement of Ireland, etc." (Louvain, 1668); "The Bleeding Iphigenia" (1674), and "The Unkind Deserter of Loyal men and true friends," i.e. Ormond (Paris, 1676). An edition of his works was prepared by Samuel H. Bindon and was published at Dublin, in 1846.

BRADY, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1867); WARE-HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1739-45); Rinuccini's Embassy in Ireland, ed. HUTTON (Dublin, 1873); CLARENDON, History of Irish Rebellion of 1641 (Dublin 1719); GILBERT, History of Irish Confederation (Dublin, 1882-1891).

JAMES MACCAFFREY

French Catholics in the United States

The first Bishop of Burlington, the Right Reverend Louis de Goesbriand, in a letter dated 11 May, 1869, and which appeared in "Le Protecteur Canadien", a French newspaper then published at St. Albans, Vermont, made the following statement: "I am convinced from positive information, that when we say that there are 500,000 French-Canadians in the United States, the figures are far below the truth." The sources from which the late prelate drew his information are unknown to the writers of this article, but it is a fact that to-day the Diocese of Burlington has a Catholic population of 76,000 souls, of which 50,000 at least are of French Canadian birth on origin. It is also a fact that the French Canadian element has increased, both naturally and by immigration, to such an extent that it now numbers nearly 1,200,000 souls in the United States, that it has made its influence felt throughout the Eastern States, in all walks of life, and furthermore that, in point of numbers, it is the predominant element in several dioceses, and an important part of the population in many others. However, except in their own newspapers, or a few little-known books, scarcely anything had been said of the part taken by these immigrants in the civil and religious life of their new country, until, very recently, they took into their own hands the task of reviewing their history, of gathering statistics of their numbers, and of recording their achievements and the progress they have made in fifty years. The task is still far from complete, but enough has been done to demonstrate the progress of the French Canadians and their devotion to their Church and to their adopted country.

The immigration of French Canadians to the United States began before the War of American Independence (1775-83). French Canadians had then already immigrated to New England, and we find them in large numbers in the armies of Washington. After the war the American Congress, in recognition of their services and to prevent their being prosecuted in Canada on the charge of high treason, gave them land on the shores of Lake Champlain, where their descendants are still to be found. That concession of land, situated in the State of New York, has long been known as "the Refugees' Tract". In 1837, after the rebellion in the Province of Quebec, a new immigration to the Eastern States took place, to the State of Vermont, more particularly, where the "Patriots", vanquished in battle, sought refuge with their families. But the chief influx from French Canada to the United States took place after the Civil War. Notwithstanding the fact that they had at that time but few organized parishes, the French Canadians were here in sufficient numbers during the war to furnish 40,000 soldiers to the Union. The immigration at the close of the war has been ascribed to many causes, the most considerable of which are the unprecedented industrial prosperity that followed the Civil War and the inborn love of the French Canadian for travelling, together with the desire to earn the high wages and to share in the vast opportunities which the Republic offered to its citizens.

Some writers -- and many of these in earnest -- have given as the principal cause of this French Canadian immigration, three-fourths of which took place between 1865 and 1890, the necessity in which the farmers of the Province of Quebec found themselves of seeking a new home after leading a life of luxury and dissipation. Undoubtedly this was true of some, but the general moral character of the hundreds of thousands who crossed the border is the best proof that the true cause of this movement must be sought elsewhere. The Jesuit, Father Hamon, writing on this subject, does not hesitate to say: "The rapidity with which this immigration was accomplished, and the ease with which these Canadians transplanted into a foreign land, have immediately reconstructed the Catholic mould of the parish that made their strength in Canada; the energy shown by them in erecting churches and convents, in grouping themselves together, and in organizing flourishing congregations, supported within by all that nourishes Christian piety, protected without against pernicious influences by the strength of association, and a press generally well inspired; all these elements of Catholic life, organized within a quarter of a century in the very citadel of old Puritanism, seem to indicate a Providential action as well as a Providential mission, the importance of which the future alone will reveal."

Those who do not look higher than material considerations in studying the causes of national movements will not give much credence to this opinion of Father Hamon. Nevertheless it is to-day a fact recognized by noted economists, that the French Canadians, now better known in the Republic under the name of French Americans, are, as labourers and artisans, the most solid and reliable pillar of industry in New England. And New England has received within its borders, more than two-thirds of their total immigration. As Catholics, it is obvious that they have played a role no less important, as may easily be seen by the perusal of Catholic Directories. Father Hamon classifies the French Canadian immigration as temporary, fluctuating, and permanent. Figures show the relative importance of each of these classes and demonstrate the spirit which animated the whole movement. The temporary immigration comprised a class of farmers who came to the United States with the avowed intention of going back to their old homes as soon as they had saved enough money to clear their farms from mortgages and all other financial incumbrances. This class became less numerous from day to day; so much so, that it was practically unnoticeable, as early as 1880. In many cases the intention of returning to the old home was never carried out, Frequently this class, by revealing to their neighbours the opportunities offered across the border, induced many of them to follow in their footsteps. As to the fluctuating immigration, only a mere mention is necessary. Always on the move, from one country to the other, from city to city, from mill to mill, those who formed this class led that kind of life which relies, as Father Hamon says, on the Providence of God for its support. This roving class is still less numerous than the temporary group, and it is to be found not only in all classes of newcomers, but in settled populations as well. The permanent immigration has been the most numerous, and, naturally, the most substantial. It is these permanent French Canadian immigrants who have organized parishes and parochial schools, erected churches and convents, and now constitute the labouring power par excellence in all the industrial centres of New England. Most of them, if not all, came from the rural districts of Canada, especially from the Eastern townships, from the Dioceses of Trois Rivières and Rimouski, and from the Counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, and others on the borders. Their farms had become insufficient to support large families; in the Eastern townships their titles to the land they occupied were disputed, and they were forced to give up the fruit of many years of labour; they were the victims of the indifference shown by their Governments, both Provincial and Federal, towards colonization and the opening up of new farming districts. The increasing population was thus compelled by circumstances, to look elsewhere, for more land and greater opportunities. At the same time, the reports sent home by those who had taken part in the earlier immigration had widely advertised throughout the whole Province of Quebec, the material advantages of the United States. This migration was called at the time "the desertion of the Fatherland". But those who spoke thus were forgetful of the historical fact, that the French of America have from the very beginning felt perfectly at home in the whole northern part of the continent, on the soil of which their missionaries, their coureurs des bois, explorers, and warriors have left their footprints broadcast. In spite of all opposing efforts, hundreds of thousands of French Canadians, most of them farmers, between 1870 and 1890, left their rural occupation to adopt the more arduous life of the New England factories and the various industries of the Western States. This movement took place quietly, slowly, without creating any disturbance, and almost unnoticed. It was, in a certain sense, a repetition of that other movement which, advocated by Horace Greeley, sent toward the Golden Gate so many young men of the East.

Doubtless, this depopulation on a large scale was a great loss to Canada, where the emigrants might have founded families of colonists. But the nature of this emigration was such that it could not be checked by any special legislation. The movement had set in, and it was too late to forestall an event prepared by many years of economic conditions misunderstood or wilfully ignored. The stream had found its way across the borders, where new industries, phenomenal opportunities, and advantages unheard of before, were ready to absorb and utilize this new and valuable power of production.

In order to present a strictly accurate idea of the importance of the French American element, both numerically and from a Catholic standpoint, the following sources of information have been used for this article:--

• (1) The Twelfth Census of the United States (1900);
• (2) Local enumerations made in New England since 1900, and as late as the present year (1908); and
• (3) The Catholic Directory of the United States.

The accompanying table, compiled from the first of these three sources, shows, first, the number of French Americans born in Canada and, secondly, this first class combined with those of whom at least one parent was born in Canada.

The figures given for Louisiana are, of course, exclusive of all other inhabitants of French extraction; those relating to California are exclusive of the large population of immigrants from France established in that State, more especially in the city of San Francisco. There were also, 115 persons of French Canadian parentage in Alaska, and 4 in Hawaii, besides 502 persons of the same parentage in the military and naval service of the United States, stationed abroad and not credited to any State or Territory. Combining with these small figures the totals for the five divisions given in the last column of the table, we get the grand total of 810,105 persons of French Canadian parentage living under the United States Flag. But these figures only represent the first and second generations, i. e. original immigrants still living, and their immediate descendants. In this connexion the director of the census says: "A small number of the persons reported as of foreign birth, are themselves of native parentage, so that, to a very small extent, the number of persons of foreign birth reported at each census is not included in its entirety in the number of persons reported as of foreign parentage. The figures are sufficiently comparable, however, to show the large body of population which must be added to the foreign born element itself in order to ascertain, even approximately, the number of persons of foreign extraction at any of the census periods considered. Moreover, this is the best figure that can be given as expressing the element of our population which is of foreign extraction, as the census inquiry does not go beyond the immediate parents of each person enumerated, and it is impracticable, at least under present conditions, to endeavor to determine the origin of the people beyond a single generation."

It is obvious, that an inquiry which does not go beyond the immediate ancestors of each person enumerated cannot convey an exact idea of the real number of those who may still be distinctly classified as French Americans, even though both of their parents may have been born in the United States. And when it is remembered that the French Canadians were early settlers in the northern part of the State of New York, that they were, practically, the first settlers of the State of Maine, and had found their way into Vermont as early as 1830; that French Canadians were the pioneers of the Western States, where they founded, or assisted in founding, great cities like Chicago, St. Louis, St. Paul, Dubuque, Milwaukee, and Detroit, it is not difficult to understand that in certain parts of the country at least three generations of French Americans have been recorded by the census of 1900 as native whites of native parents. How far short of the actual number of French Americans are the figures of the National Census, may be estimated by considering the local enumerations taken in the New England States since 1900, with the following results:--

These figures, compared with the total (508,362) of those given in the Census of 1900 for the same six States, show an excess of the local over the national enumeration of 215,170 persons, or more than 42.3 per cent, for New England alone. This excess, explained in part by the fact that the census inquiry of 1900 was limited to only two generations, is also attributable to the continuous flow of immigration and in greater measure to the large birth-rate which is still maintained among the French Americans, it having been scientifically established that the French Canadians -- at least in Canada -- double their numbers by natural increase every twenty-six years. Taking into consideration the increase (42.3 per cent) shown by the enumerations in New England over the figures given by the National Census, and also bearing in mind the fact that the figures quoted above do not include the French from France (reported as being 265,441 by the census of 1900) and the French-speaking Belgians, scattered throughout other States than those of New England, we may conclude that the French Americans in the United States to-day number more than 1,500,000, of whom nearly 1,200,000 can be classified as of French Canadian extraction. As this immigration of French Canadians was almost exclusively an immigration of Catholics, we are led to inquire what provisions were made for them in the different dioceses.

The French Canadians had left behind them in Canada a perfect Catholic organization, with parishes flourishing in all parts of the province, with episcopal sees in Quebec, Ontario, and the West -- an organization comprising to-day many ecclesiastical provinces with archbishops, bishops, a numerous clergy, both secular and regular, as well as educational and charitable institutions of the highest order. It was not to be expected that the immigrants should find in their new country the religious organization they had possessed in Canada. Nevertheless, they had to be provided for, and it became a serious problem for the hierarchy, of New England especially, to determine how these newcomers should be cared for spiritually. The question of language stood in the way from the very beginning. The French Canadians, though willing to become staunch Americans, did not know the English language, and even when they had learned it, they still preserved a strong attachment for their mother tongue. That this problem puzzled the bishops of New England, is shown by the time taken for its solution, and by the fact that in some instances they were reluctant, or often unable, to deal with the situation in the only proper way, which was, to give to these people priests of their own tongue and nationality. Even to-day this problem is not adequately solved. It was feared at the beginning, as it is feared now in some quarters, that to grant to the French Canadian immigrants priests of their own tongue and nationality would encourage them to form a sort of state within the state, thereby causing great harm to the nation as a whole. Time has shown the fallacy of that argument. The patriotism of the French American element is undisputed. They possess the sterling civic qualities desirable and necessary to promote the best interests of the republic. As a matter of fact, the French Canadian immigration has created no new state in the state; and the French Americans have willingly learned the English language while remaining as closely attached as ever to their mother tongue, in which they see the best safeguard of their faith.

The progress accomplished for God and country through the organization of French American parishes all over New England is the conclusive proof of their excellency from every standpoint. It proves, at the same time, that further progress, religious and patriotic, can be accomplished by pursuing the same policy. At first, it was necessary to call priests from the Province of Quebec. That policy, inaugurated in the Diocese of Burlington in 1850, by the lamented Bishop de Goesbriand, has proved to be a blessing wherever it has been carried out. These early French Canadian missionaries, of whom many are still living, knew their people, understood their character and customs, had the same mentality as their flock, and easily succeeded in organizing flourishing parishes entirely devoted to the Church. As early as 1890 Father Hamon notes that these newcomers already possessed 120 churches and chapels, ministered to by Canadian priests, and 50 large schools, affording education to more than 30,000 children. Let us recall a few dates which mark the beginning of this new impulse given to the Catholic Church in the United States.

The first French American parish in the United States, after the foundation of Detroit, Michigan, was that of St. Joseph, at Burlington, Vermont, founded 28 April, 1850, with the Rev. Joseph Quévillon as first pastor. In the same state, the parish of the Nativité de la Sainte-Vierge, at Swanton, was organized in 1856, and that of St-François-Xavier at Winooski, in 1868. In the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts, the parish of Notre-Dame du Bon Conseil, at Pittsfield, was organized in 1867. In all, 22 parishes were organized by French Americans from that date to 1890, besides 15 parishes of mixed population, wherein the French Catholics were associated with their English-speaking brethren. In the Diocese of Providence, R. I., the parish of St-Jacques, at Manville, was organized in 1872, that of the Précieux Sang, at Woonsocket, in 1873, and that of St-Charles, at Providence, in 1878. In the Diocese of Hartford, Conn., the parish of St-Laurent, at Meriden, was organized in 1880, and five other parishes between 1880 and 1889. In the Diocese of Boston, the parish of St-Joseph, at Lowell, was organized in 1869, and that of Ste-Anne, at Lawrence, in 1873. In the Diocese of Portland, Maine, the parish of St-François de Sales, at Waterville, was organized in 1869, that of St-Pierre, at Lewiston, in 1871, that of St-Joseph, at Biddeford, in 1872, and that of St-Augustin, at Augusta, in 1888. In the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, the parishes of St-Augustin, at Manchester, and St-Louis, at Nashua, were organized in 1872. Similar results were accomplished in the Dioceses of Ogdensburg, Albany, and Syracuse, and in the Western States. The accompanying table shows the actual religious organization of the French-American Catholics in New England -- their clergy, parishes, etc.

To complete these figures for the United States would necessitate a study of all the dioceses, as there are French Americans in every state and territory of the Union; a few statistics, however, of the priests of French extraction in the principal dioceses will help to give a more definite idea of the organization as a whole: Baltimore has 21; Chicago, 62; Albany, 19; St. Paul, 14; San Francisco, 3; New York, 25; Oregon, 5; Philadelphia, 3; Dubuque, 7; Milwaukee, 9; New Orleans, 96; Syracuse, 5; and Ogdensburg, 63.

Of the distinguished clergymen whose names are associated with the work already described, the following have already been called to their reward: Norbert Blanchette, first Bishop and first Archbishop of Oregon City; J. B. Lamy, Archbishop of Santa Fé, New Mexico; Monsignor Magloire Blanchette, Prothonotary Apostolic, of Walla Walla, Washington; the Rev. P. M. Mignault, of Chambly, Quebec, who in the fifties was vicar-general of the Diocese of Boston, with the special mission of caring for the spiritual needs of his compatriots in the United States; the Rev. Joseph Quévillon, of Burlington, Vermont; Monsignor Brochu, of Southbridge, the Rev. J. B. Primeau, of Worcester, the Rev. L. G. Gagnier, of Springfield, and the Rev. J. B. Bédard, of Fall River, Massachusetts; the Rev. J. Roch Magnan, of Muskegon, Michigan. Mention should also be made of the Right Rev. Bishop Michaud, lately deceased, whose father was a French Acadian, and who had been for many years at the head of the Diocese of Burlington, proving himself a worthy successor to Bishop de Goesbriand. Among the living there are scores of others who have been true pioneers of the Faith, and to whom is due great credit for having so well organized a new and loyal membership of the Church in the United States. Recently one of their number has been elevated to the See of Manchester. New Hampshire, in the person of the Right Rev. George Albert Guertin, consecrated 19 March, 1907.

The religious orders of men and women have been worthy co-labourers with the priests in the building-up of parishes. To them have been entrusted the education of children and the care of the sick and orphans. This mission has been especially well fulfilled in the French American parishes, where the convent of the sisters and the school of the brothers are the necessary complements of the church itself. One does not go without the other, and as a rule the school is built before the church and is used for a church also. The number of members in the different religious communities of women is given in the accompanying table.

These 1985 women are distributed in 30 different orders, bearing the following names: Congregation de Notre-Dame de Montréal, Filles de Marie (France), Sœurs de Ste-Croix de Montréal, Sœurs de la Providence de Montréal, Sœurs de la Présentation de Marie de St-Hyacinthe, Sœurs de Ste-Anne de Lachine, Sœurs Grises de Montréal, Sœurs de la Merci, Sœurs Grises d'Ottawa, Sœurs de l'Assomption, Sœurs du Bon Pasteur de Québec, Sœurs Dominicaines, Sœurs Franciscaines Missionaires de Marie, Sœurs Grises de St-Hyacinthe, Sœurs de Jésus-Marie de Sillery, Ursulines des Trois Rivières, Congrègation Notre-Dame (Villa Maria), Sœurs de la Sainte Union des Sacrés-Cœurs, Sœurs du Saint-Esprit, Sœurs du Saint-Rosaire, Filles de la Sagesse, Petites Sœurs des Pauvres, Sœurs de St-Joseph (Le Puy), Sœurs du Sacré-Cœur, Sœurs de St-Joseph (Chambéry), Sœurs Servantes du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, les Fidèles Compagnes de Jésus, Sœurs du Bon Pasteur (Angers), Petites Sœurs Franciscaines de Marie (Malbaie), Dames de Sion. The most important of these are: the Sœurs de Ste-Croix, with 18 convents and 149 members; Sœurs Grises, with 17 convents and 268 members; Sœurs de la Presentation de Marie, with 16 convents and 193 members; Sœurs de Jésus-Marie, with 19 convents and 171 members.

There are a few communities of brothers: Frères de Ia Charitè de St-Vincent de Paul, 27 members; Frères Maristes d'Iberville, 47; Frères de St-Gabriel, 7; Frères des Ecoles Chrétiennes, 7; Frères du Sacré-Cœur, 31 -- making a total of 119 members. Besides these orders entirely devoted to education, the regular clergy has been given charge of a number of parishes which stand to-day among the most numerous and flourishing. For instance, the Dominican Order has two parishes, Ste-Anne, at Fall River, Massachusetts, and St-Pierre, at Lewiston, Maine. The Oblates are established at Lowell, Mass., and Plattsburg, N. Y.; the Pères de la Salette, in Connecticut and Massachusetts; the Pères du Sacré-Ccour, in Rhode Island and Massachusetts; the Pères Maristes in Massachusetts.

The French Americans have 133 parochial schools, in which 54,983 children receive Christian education.

To these must be added the secondary (high-school and university academic courses) college established by the Pères de l'Assomption from France, at Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1904, and 14 small academies, commercial colleges, and boarding schools in which there are about 1000 pupils of both sexes. In connexion with the subject of higher education, it may be well to remark that about 3500 French American children attend annually the commercial and secondary colleges in different cities of Canada. French religious orders, both of women and men, also have charge of 2618 orphans in New England. French nuns have charge of 1865 sick and aged adults, wayward women, and working girls.

Besides their religious work, vast and praiseworthy as it is, the French Canadian immigrants have also displayed industry and activity in other walks of life, and in their closer relations with their fellow-citizens they have shown qualities and traits found only in the best of citizens. In other words they have stood well up to the standard in the body politic and in many ways have exercised over their surroundings an influence for the general good of the community such as to fully justify, at least so far as it refers to them, the statement made by Vice-President Fairbanks, that in the American Nation "flows the richest blood that courses in the veins of all the peoples in all quarters of the globe." In fifty years, they have built up a press that is not surpassed, from the Catholic point of view, by that of any other group of immigrants in the United States. That press is composed to-day of seven dailies -- "L'Indépendant", of Fall River, Mass.; "L'Opinion Publique", of Worcester, Mass.; "L'Etoile", of Lowell, Mass.; "La Tribune", of Woonsocket, R. I.; "L'Avenir National", and "Le Reveil", of Manchester, N. H.; "L'Echo de la Presse", of New Bedford, Mass.; two papers issued every other day -- "Le Messager", of Lewiston, Maine; "L'Impartial", of Nashua, N. H.; one semi-weekly "Le Jean-Baptiste", of Pawtucket, R. I.; and the fifteen weeklies -- "L'Union", of Woonsocket, R. I., official organ of L'Union St-Jean-Baptiste d'Amérique; "Le Canado-Américain", of Manchester, N. H., official organ of L'Association Canado-Américaine; "La Justice", of Biddeford, Maine; "La Justice", of Central Falls, R. I.; "La Justice", of Holyoke, Mass.; "L'Estafette", of Marlboro, Mass.; "Le Progrès", of Lawrence, Mass.; "Le Courrier", of Lawrence, Mass.; "Le Courrier de Salem", of Salem, Mass.; "L'Echo de l'Ouest", of Minneapolis, Minn.; "Le Courrier Franco-Américain", of Chicago, Ill.; "L'Indépendant" (weekly edition), of Fall River, Mass.; "L'Indépendant", of Fitchburg, Mass.; "Le Progrès", of Woonsocket, R. I., and "Le Citoyen", of Haverhill, Mass. These newspapers are thoroughly Catholic in spirit, as well as sincerely American. Their editors and publishers met in convention, at Woonsocket, R. I., on 25 September, 1906, and organized the Association des Journalistes Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle Angleterre. At that meeting they adopted resolutions asserting their loyalty to the republic, and advising the French Americans to show themselves true and sincere American citizens, to promote naturalization, to preserve their mother tongue, to learn the English language, to maintain parochial schools, wherein both languages should be taught on an equal footing, and to ask for priests of their own nationality to be their pastors. The resolutions also requested the Holy See to appoint, when feasible and proper, bishops of their nationality, familiar with both the English and French languages, in all dioceses in which the French Americans constitute the majority of the Catholic population. The first French newspaper to appear in the United States was "Le Courier de Boston", which was published weekly during a period of six months in 1789, the first number appearing on 23 April, and the last on 15 October. The editor and publisher was Paul Joseph Guérard de Nancrède, later a bookseller and stationer at Boston, and instructor in French at Harvard University from 1787 to 1800. The next French American newspaper was published in 1825, at Detroit, under the title of "La Gazette Française", which issued only four numbers. In 1817, the Detroit Gazette published a French column during four months and then abandoned the venture. The second French American newspaper in New England was "Le Patriote", published at St. Albans, Vermont, in 1839. Since that time nearly 200 newspapers published in the French language have appeared and disappeared, leaving only those mentioned above.

French American activity, while effectively applied to the enterprises of religion, education, and the press, has not neglected provident organizations. The first French institution of this kind was the Société de Jacques Cartier, founded in St. Albans, Vermont, in 1848, while the Société St-Jean-Baptiste of New York, organized in 1850, is still in existence. In 1868 they had 17 benevolent societies, and since then they have organized more than 400 others, of which about 142 are still in existence. Moreover they have established federations, which have more than four hundred and fifty councils or branches, with thousands of members. To these organizations are due, in a great measure, the existence and prosperity of the most of the parishes. Many of them have inserted in their by-laws articles recommending naturalization. To obtain membership in any one of them the applicant must, in all cases, be of French origin and a practising Catholic. The local societies which still survive are distributed among the different states as follows: Massachusetts, 62; Vermont, 18; New Hampshire, 25; Maine, 12; Rhode Island, 11; Connecticut 14 -- making a total of 142. It was in 1900 that, in response to the acknowledged need of a central organization embracing all the groups of the French race in the United States, the Union St-Jean-Baptiste d'Amérique was organized, with headquarters in Woonsocket, R. I., through the federation of a considerable number of the local societies. This move has proved to be a very wise one, as is shown by the rapid growth of the new society, which has enrolled over 19,500 members in eight years. The Association Canado-Américaine of Manchester, New Hampshire, established in 1896, has a membership of over 11,000 and is working along the same religious and patriotic lines. In 1906, a new society, the Ordre des Forestiers Franco-Américains, was formed by the secession of a few thousand members from the Foresters of America, and it now comprises 40 courts. All the French American societies, with the exception of the Forestiers, give life insurance, and, without exception, they provide for sick benefits. Millions of dollars have been distributed by them to the widows and orphans of their members and to their sick fellow-members. The Société des Artisans Canadiens-Français, though a Canadian Society, and the Société L'Assomption, a society of French Acadians drawing the greater part of its membership from the maritime provinces, also have members in the United States and are therefore included in the accompanying table, which shows the number of councils or courts and the membership of the four national societies in New England.

These societies are all Catholic, and in 1905 the Union St-Jean-Baptiste d'Amérique and L'Association Canado-Américaine were instrumental in organizing the Société Franco-Américaine du Denier de St-Pierre, whose sole object is to collect funds for the Holy See. The Société Historique France-Americaine, incorporated under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, was organized at Boston in 1899, "for the purpose of encouraging the careful and systematical study of the history of the United States, and especially to bring forth in its true light the exact part taken by the French race in the evolution and formation of the American people". With this end in view this society has met regularly twice a year since its organization. Noted American historians and writers, as well as several from France and Canada, have delivered before it addresses which have contributed in no slight measure to enrich the store of French American historical literature. Another organization which seems destined to play an important role, at least among the French Americans of tomorrow, is the Association Catholique de la Jeunesse Franco-Américaine, which was formed at Baltimore, Maryland, 4 January, 1908, by twenty-two young French Americans who were students in various universities of that city. This organization aims first of all to form true sons of the Catholic Church and useful citizens of the American Republic. Piety, study, and action constitute its threefold motto. Its first congress, held at Worcester, Massachusetts, 23 and 24 August, 1908, was attended by delegates from circles formed in different New England localities.

Besides the admirable work they have accomplished by means of their parishes, press, and societies, and in order to render their efforts more effective, the French Americans have held at different times conventions called for various purposes. The first of these gatherings, destined to promote the interests of the mutual benefit societies then existing, and held under their auspices, took place at New York City, in 1865. Thereafter similar conventions were held annually, the year 1877 excepted, until 1881, as follows: 1865, New York; 1869, Detroit; 1873, Biddeford, Maine; 1866, New York; 1870, St. Albans, Vermont; 1874, New York; 1867, Troy; 1871, Worcester, Mass.; 1875, Glens Falls, N. Y.; 1868, Springfield, Mass.; 1872, Chicago, Ill.; 1876, Holyoke, Mass.; 1878, Troy, N. Y.; 1879, Boston, Mass.; 1880, Northampton, Mass.; 1881, Lawrence, Mass. Since 1880 there have been six general conventions of French Americans, to which all the groups of this element, as well as all their societies, were invited to send delegates. These national gatherings took place as follows: 1880, Springfield, Mass.; 1882, Cohoes, N. Y.; 1884, Troy; 1886, Rutland, Vermont; 1888, Nashua, N. H.; 1893, Chicago, Ill. In October, 1901, delegates (to the number of 742) of the various groups and societies of French Americans in New England and the State of New York met in a "Congress" at Springfield, Mass. The four great subjects of deliberation were naturalization, benevolent societies, education, and the religious situation, and the spirit of the numerous and forcible addresses made on these heads is fittingly and admirably reflected in the resolutions. This congress, undoubtedly the most successful gathering of French Americans held up to that time, appointed a permanent commission consisting of the president of the congress and two delegates from each state represented, authorizing it to take all necessary measures for putting the resolutions of the congress into effect, and giving it the power to call another congress, local or general, according to its discretion.

Besides these general conventions, others have been held at different times and places for the purpose of considering a particular question or the interests of the French Americans of a particular state or diocese. For instance, the French Americans of Connecticut have held eighteen conventions in the last twenty-three years. Political organizations have also flourished among citizens of French Canadian origin, and naturalization clubs can be found in every city, town, or village where they are sufficient in number to maintain such institutions. In June, 1906, there was organized in the State of Massachusetts the Club Républicain Franco-Américain, with headquarters at Boston, at the first banquet of which, in April, 1907, Hon. Charles J. Bonaparte, a member of the Roosevelt Cabinet, was the guest of honour. The French Americans, in 1890, had 13 representatives in the Legislatures of Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, besides numerous public servants in the city councils and the municipal administrations; in 1907 they elected senators in Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; their representatives in New England numbered, in 1907, as follows :--

-- a total of 5 Senators and 35 Representatives. In many instances their candidates for high political honours have been successful at the polls. Such has been the case with the Hon. Pierre Broussard, Congressman from Louisiana; the Hon. Aram J. Pothier, of Woonsocket, R. I., elected governor of his state in November, 1908, after having been its lieutenant-governor and mayor of his city; the Hon. Adélard Archambault, also of Woonsocket, and who has likewise filled the offices of lieutenant-governor and mayor; Judge Joseph A. Breaux, of Louisiana; Pierre Bonvouloir, of Holyoke, Mass., whose service as city treasurer covers a period of fifteen consecutive years; Hugo A. Dubuque, of Fall River, Mass., ex-member of the Massachusetts Legislature, and city solicitor; Alex. L. Granger, of Kankakee, Ill., district attorney; Aimé E. Boisvert, of Manchester, N. H., district attorney; and Arthur S. Hogue, of Plattsburg, N. Y., also district attorney. Studying an earlier period, we find the names of Pierre Ménard, first Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois; the Rev. Gabriel Richard, second Congressman from Michigan (the only Catholic priest who ever sat in Congress), and Louis Vital Bougy, United States Senator from Wisconsin. At the present time, prominent among those who serve the country abroad are the following French Americans: Arthur M. Beaupré (Illinois), Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Netherlands; Alphonse Gaulin (Rhode Island), Consul-general at Marseilles, France; Eugène L. Belisle (Massachusetts), Consul at Limoges, France; Pierre P. Demers (New Hampshire), Consul at Bahia, Brazil; Joseph M. Authier (Rhode Island), Consul at Guadeloupe, West Indies.

In civil life, belonging to the generation departed for a better world, though their names are still present to the memory of their fellow-citizens and compatriots, were Ferdinand Gagnon, of Worcester, Mass., the father of French American journalism; Dr. L. J. Martel, of Lewiston, Maine, his worthy associate in the advancement of the French American element in the New England Slates; Major Edmond Mallet, of Washington, D. C., recognized as an authority upon the history of the North-West, and whose library (preserved intact by L'Union St-Jean-Baptiste d'Amérique) is the largest and most complete collection of documents relating to the French Americans ever gathered; Frédéric Houde and Antoine Mousette, pioneer journalists; Judge Joseph LeBoeuf, of Cohoes, N. Y.; Pierre F. Peloquin, of Fall River, Mass., and a score of others who for years had been foremost among their compatriots as champions of their rights, both civil and religious.

To sum up, the record of the French Americans in their new country has been such that prominent men of native origin, writers and politicians of note, have sung their praise on more than one occasion. In this respect, one will readily remember the homage paid them upon different occasions by the late Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, as well as the marks of high esteem shown them by governors and members of Congress. As recently as 20 March, 1908, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, speaking on "Immigration" before the Boston City Club, made the following statement: "Later than any of these (movements of immigration) was the immigration of French Canadians, but which has assumed large proportions, and has become a strong and most valuable element of our population. But the French of Canada scarcely come within the subject we are considering, because they are hardly to be classed as immigrants in the accepted sense. They represent one of the oldest settlements on this continent. They have been, in the broad sense, Americans for generations, and their coming to the United States, is merely a movement of Americans across an imaginary line, from one part of America to another." In truth, the sentiment of hostility and suspicion, which rebuked the French Americans at their arrival in the republic, has subsided before their splendid conduct and magnificent spirit, and is replaced to-day by that tribute of respect which mankind acknowledges as due, and never fails to grant, to men of talent, industry, generosity, and patriotism.

J.L.K. LAFLAMME
DAVID E. LAVIGNE J. ARTHUR FAVREAU

Charles-Emile Freppel

Born at Ober-Ehnheim, Alsace, 1 June, 1827; died at Paris, 22 Dec., 1891. He was Bishop of Angers, France; and deputy from Finistère. He began his studies at a school in the little town; and at seventeen he had received his baccalaureate degree, and entered the the seminary Strasburg, where he received the subdiaconate at the hands of Mgr. Roess in 1848, and was at once appointed to the chair of history. Subsequent to his ordination to the priesthood in 1849, he took a noteworthy part in the discussions of Bonnetty and Maret on the subject of traditionalism. He passed a brilliant examination which secured for him the degree of doctor at the Sorbonne, and after a competitive examination he was named chaplain of the church of Ste-Geneviève at Paris. Here he delivered a course of sermons on the "Divinity of Jesus Christ" which have since been published in book form. He conducted Advent and Lenten exercises at the Madeleine and St-Louis d' Antin, at Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, and St. Germain l' Auxerrois. His early discourses were published in 1869, in two volumes. Having been appointed to the chair of sacred eloquence at the Sorbonne, he conducted a series of scholarly studies on the Apostolic Fathers and the Christian apologists. They fill ten volumes (4th ed., Paris, 1885). In 1867 Napoleon III invited him to preach the Lenten sermons at the Tuileries, and these discourses have been published in a volume entitled "La Vie Chrétienne".

It was about this time that Renan's "Vie de Jésus" provoked such a storm of controversy. Mgr. Freppel published a reply to the work, his "Examen critique de la Vie de Jésus de M. Renan" (Paris, 1863), which was perhaps the best refutation of the theories expounded by the French free-thinker. Pius IX, who was then making preparations for the Council of the Vatican, summoned the Abbe Freppel to Rome to assist in the work of drawing up the schemata (drafts of decrees). The pope thus showed his appreciation of Freppel's learning and accomplishments, and appointed him to the Bishopric of Angers, rendered vacant by the death of Mgr. Angebault. He received the episcopal consecration at Rome, 18 April, 1870. Later there was shown a disposition to elevate him to the metropolitan See of Chambery; but he declined with the same modesty which in 1885, caused him to implore those, who, with M. Jules Ferry, desired his elevation to the dignity of the cardinalate, to discontinue their efforts on his behalf. Upon his return from Rome he proved himself, by his defense of his country, as good a patriot as at the council he had shown himself as able theologian.

In 1871, he accepted the candidature for one of the eIectoral divisions of Paris. He was defeated because of the ill will which the liberals had borne him since the council, at which, according to them, he had shown himself too ultramontane. In 1880, the electors of Finistere asked him to act as the representative, he was elected by a large majority to this position of trust. His first speech in the French Chamber was a vigorous protest against the expulsion of the Jesuits. For eleven years the bishop-deputy (eacute;vêque député) was the most attentively-heard orator in the Chamber, treating with equal authority the most diverse subjects, and such as would seem farthest removed from his ordinary studies. While he did not bring about the triumph of justice to the extent he desired, he defended it nobly though running violently counter to the prejudices of that assembly. He won even the esteem of his enemies, and M. Floquet was one day was able to re-echo the plaudits not only of the Chamber but of the whole of France. His "OEuvres polémiques" and his "Oratoires" have been collected in seventeen volumes (Paris, 1869-88). Almost all the great religious, political, and social questions which engaged men's minds at that time are here treated. Amongst his numerous other writings should be mentioned his work on the French Revolution (Paris, 1889), and "Bossuet et l'éloquence sacrée au XVII siècle", (Paris, 1894).

LOUIS LALANDE

Frequent Communion

Without specifying how often the faithful should communicate. Christ simply bids us eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and warns us, that if we do not do so, we shall not have life in us (John, vi, etc.). The fact, however, that His Body and Blood were to be received under the appearances of bread and wine, the ordinary daily food and drink of His hearers, would point, to the frequent and even daily reception of the Sacrament. The manna, too, with which He compared "the bread which He would give", was daily partaken of by the Israelites. Moreover, though the petition "give us this day our daily bread" does not primarily refer to the Eucharist, nevertheless it could not fail to lead men to believe that their souls, as well as their bodies, stood in need of daily nourishment. In this article we shall deal with (I) the history of the frequency of Holy Communion, (II) the present practice as enjoined by Pius X.

I. HISTORY

In the early Church at Jerusalem the faithful received every day (Acts, ii, 46). Later on, however, we read that St. Paul remained at Troas for seven days, and it was only "on the first day of the week" that the faithful "assembled to break bread" (Acts, xx, 6-11; cf. I Cor., xvi, 2). According to the "Didache" the breaking of bread took place on "the Lord's day" (kata kyriaken, c. xiv). Pliny says that the Christians assembled "on a fixed day" (Ep. x); and St. Justin, "on the day called Sunday" (te tou heliou legomene hemera, Apol., I, lxvii, 3, 7). It is in Tertullian that we first read of the Liturgy being celebrated on any other day besides Sunday (De Orat., c. xix; De Corona, c. iii). Daily reception is mentioned by St. Cyprian (De Orat. Domin., c. xviii in P.L., IV, 531); St. Jerome (Ep. ad Damasum); St. John Chrysostom (Hom., iii in Eph.); St. Ambrose (in Ps. cxviii, viii, 26, 28 in P.L., XV, 1461, 1462); and the author of the "De Sacramentis" (V, iv, 25; P.L., XVI, 452).

It should be noted that in the early Church and in the patristic ages, the faithful communicated, or at any rate were expected to communicate, as often as the Holy Eucharist was celebrated (St. John Chrysostom loc. cit.; Apostolic canons, X; St. Gregory the Great, Dial. II, 23). They received even oftener, since it was the custom to carry away the Sacred Elements and communicate at home (St. Justin, loc. cit.; Tertullian, "Ad Uxorem", II, v; Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xliv). This was done especially by hermits, by dwellers in monasteries without priests, and by those who lived at a distance from any church. On the other hand, we find that practice fell far short of precept, and that the faithful were frequently rebuked for so seldom receiving the Holy Communion (see especially St. John Chrysostom, loc. cit., and St. Ambrose, loc. cit.). St. Augustine sums up the matter thus: "Some receive the Body and Blood of the Lord every day; others on certain days; in some places there is no day on which the Sacrifice is not offered; in others on Saturday and Sunday only; in others on Sunday alone (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.). Whether it was advisable for the faithful, especially those living in matrimony, to receive daily, was a question on which the Fathers were not agreed. St. Jerome is aware of this custom at Rome, but he says: "Of this I neither approve nor disapprove; let each abound in his own sense" (Ep. xlviii in P.L., XXII, 505 -- 6; Ep. lxxi in P.L., XXII, 672). St. Augustine discusses the question at length, and comes to the conclusion, that there is much to be said on both sides (Ep. liv in P.L., XXXIII, 200 sqq.). Good Christians still communicated once a week, down to the time of Charlemagne, but after the break-up of his empire this custom came to an end. St. Bede bears witness to the Roman practice of communicating on Sundays and on the feasts of the Apostles and Martyrs, and laments the rarity of reception in England (Ep. ad Egb. in P.L., XCIV, 665).

Strange to say, it was in the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", that Communion was less frequent than at any other period of the Church's history. The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times. The teaching of the great theologians, however, was all on the side of frequent, and to some extent daily, Communion [Peter Lombard, IV Sent., dist. xii, n. 8; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., III,Q. lxxx, a. 10; St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent., dist. xii, punct. ii, a. 2, q. 2; see Dalgairns, "The Holy Communion" (Dublin) part III, chap. i]. Various reformers, Tauler, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Vincent Ferrer, and Savonarola, advocated, and in many instances brought about, a return to frequent reception. The Council of Trent expressed a wish "that at each Mass the faithful who are present, should communicate" (Sess. XXII, chap. vi). And the Catechism of the council says: "Let not the faithful deem it enough to receive the Body of the Lord once a year only; but let them judge that Communion ought to be more frequent; but whether it be more expedient that it should be monthly, weekly, or daily, can be decided by no fixed universal rule" (pt. II, c. iv, n. 58). As might be expected, the disciples of St. Ignatius and St. Philip carried on the work of advocating frequent Communion. With the revival of this practice came the renewal of the discussion as to the advisability of daily Communion. While all in theory admitted that daily reception was good, they differed as to the conditions required.

The Congregation of the Council (1587) forbade any general restriction, and ordered that no one should be repelled from the Sacred Banquet, even if he approached daily. In 1643, Arnauld's "Frequent Communion" appeared, in which he required, for worthy reception, severe penance for past sins and most pure love of God. The Congregation of the Council was once more appealed to, and decided (1679) that though universal daily Communion was not advisable, no one should be repelled, even if he approached daily; parish priests and confessors should decide how often, but they should take care that all scandal and irreverence should be avoided (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., n. 1148). In 1690, Arnauld's conditions were condemned. In spite of these decisions, the reception of Holy Communion became less and less frequent, owing to the spread of rigid Jansenistic opinions, and this rigour lasted almost into our own day. The older and better tradition was, however, preserved by some writers and preachers, notably F?enelon and St. Alphonsus, and, with the spread of devotion to the Sacred Heart, it gradually became once more the rule. Difficulty, however, was raised regarding daily Communion. This practice, too, was warmly recommended by Pius IX and Leo XIII, and finally received official approval from Pius X.

II. PRACTICE

(a) The rules for frequent and daily Communion are laid down by the decree of the Congregation of the Council "Sacra Tridentina Synodus" (20 Dec., 1905). (1) "Frequent and daily Communion. . . should be open to all the faithful, of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the holy table with a right and devout intention, can be lawfully hindered therefrom." (2) "A right intention consists in this: that he who approaches the Holy Table should do so, not out of routine, or vainglory, or human respect, but for the purpose of pleasing God, or being more closely united with Him by charity, and of seeking this Divine remedy for his weaknesses and defects". Rule 3 declares that "it is sufficient that they (the daily communicants) be free from mortal sin, with the purpose of never sinning in future", and Rule 4 enjoins that "care is to be taken that Holy Communion be proceeded by serious preparation and followed by a suitable thanksgiving, according to each one's strength, circumstances, and duties". "Parish priests, confessors, and preachers are frequently and with great zeal to exhort the faithful to this devout and salutory practice" (Rule 6); two rules (7 and 8) refer to the daily Communion in religious communities and Catholic institutions of all kinds; and the last rule (9) forbids any further controversy on the subject.

(b) Acts and Decrees of Pius X on frequent and daily Communion.-- For two years these decrees or pronouncements follow one another in the order indicated here.

30 May, 1905.-- On the eve of the Eucharistic Congress in Rome, Pius X indulgenced the "Prayer for the diffusion of the pious custom of daily Communion", which was published and distributed on the last day of the Congress.

4 June, 1905.-- The Holy Father, presiding at the closing of the Congress in Rome, said: "I beg and implore of you all to urge the faithful to approach that Divine Sacrament. And I speak especially to you, my dear sons in the priesthood, in order that Jesus, the treasure of all the treasures of Paradise, the greatest and most precious of all the possessions of our poor desolate humanity, may not be abandoned in a manner so insulting and so ungrateful."

The decree of 20 December, 1905, has already been summarized.

25 Feb., 1906.-- To gain the plenary indulgence, granted to those who communicate five times weekly, it is not necessary to go to confession every week, every fortnight, or every month; even less frequent recurrence will do. No definite interval is given.

11 August, 1906.-- The papal Brief "Romanorum Pontificum" grants indulgences and unusual privileges to the Sacramental League of the Eucharist, which has for its object the inducement of the faithful to adopt the practice of daily or frequent Communion. By a singular favour, all confessors inscribed in this League are urged to exhort their penitents to receive daily, or almost daily, to obtain a plenary indulgence once a week.

15 Sept., 1906.-- It was explained, on this date, that the decree of 20 Dec., 1905, applies not merely to adults and the youth of both sexes, but also to children so soon as they have received their first Communion in accordance with the rules of the Roman Catechism, that is to say, as soon as they manifest sufficient discretion.

7 Dec., 1906.-- Sick persons bed-ridden for one month, without some hope of prompt recovery, may receive Holy Eucharist, even though they may have broken their fast after midnight, by drinking something, as, for instance, chocolate, tapioca, semolina, or bread soup, which are drink in the sense of the decree. This may be repeated once or twice a week, if the Blessed Sacrament is kept in the house; otherwise, once or twice a month.

25 March, 1907.-- The hierarchy are urged to secure that, there be held each year, in the cathedral church, a special Triduum for the purpose of exhorting the people to practise frequent Communion. In parish churches one day will suffice. Indulgences are granted for these exercises.

8 May, 1907.-- A general permission is granted to give Communion in private oratories to all who attend Mass, except as to Easter Communion and Viaticum.

14 July, 1907.-- Brief again delegating Cardinal V. Vannutelli to the Eucharistic Congress at Metz, which was exclusively devoted to the consideration of the question of Holy Communion. The following is an extract from the Brief: "This [frequent Communion] in truth is the shortest way to secure the salvation of every individual man as well as that of society."

HEDLEY, The Holy Eucharist, viii (London, 1907); DE ZULUETA, Notes on Daily Communion, 2nd ed. (London, 1907); FERERES, The Decree on Daily Communion, tr. JIMENEZ (London, 1908); DE S?EGUR, La Tr?es Sainte Communion in ?Oeuvres (Paris, 1872), III, 417 sqq.; FRASSINETTI, Teologia Morale (Genoa, 1875), II, 53 sqq.; GODTS, Exagg?erations Historiques et Th?eologiques concernant la Communion Quotidienne(Brussels, 1904); CHATEL, D?efense de la Doctrine Catholique sur la Communion Fr?equente(Brussels, 1905); PETAVIUS, De Theologicis Dogmatibus (Venice, 1757), II, DeP?oenitentia Publica et Pr?oeparatione ad Communionem; St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis (Paris, 1862), V, Praxis Confessarii, n. 148 sqq.; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Freiburg im Br.,1902), n. 156 sqq.; BRIDGETT, History of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain, ed. H. Thurston (London, 1908), part III, c. i; LINTELLO, Opuscules sur la Communion fr?equente et quotidienne(Paris, 1908); SALTER, Frequent Communion in The Messenger (New York, Dec., 1908).

T.B. SCANNELL

Augustin-Jean Fresnel

Physicist; b. at Broglie near Bernay, Normandy, 10 May, 1788; d. at Ville d'Avray, near Paris, 14 July, 1827. His early progress in letters was slow though he showed while still young an aptitude for physical science. In his seventeenth year he entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris where he attracted the attention of Legendre. After spending some time at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées he was assigned to the engineering corps and served successively in the departments of Vendée, Drôme, and Ille-et-Vilaine. He lost his appointment through politics on the return of Napoleon from Elba. In 1819 he was made a member of the Lighthouse Commission, becoming its secretary in 1824, and was an examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique from 1821 to 1824. Shortly afterward his health, which had never been robust, became so weakened that he was obliged to give up nearly all active work. He was unanimously elected a member of the Académie des Sciences in 1823, and in 1825 was made an associate of the London Royal Society, receiving its Rumford Medal on his death-bed.

Fresnel occupies a prominent place among the French physicists of the nineteenth century. His chosen field of research was optics, and in a series of brilliant memoirs he did much to place the wave theory upon a firm basis. He introduced with conspicuous success the conjecture of Hooke (1672) that the light vibrations are transverse. His first paper was on aberration, but it was never published. In connexion with his study of the theory and phenomena of diffraction and interference he devised his double mirrors and biprism in order to obtain two sources of light independent of apertures or the edges of opaque obstacles. His article on diffraction won the prize of the Académie des Sciences in 1819. He extended the work of Huyghens and others on double refraction and developed the well-known theory which bears his name. With Arago he investigated the phenomena and formulated the laws of the interference of polarized light. He showed how to obtain and detect circularly polarized light by means of his rhomb. An account of his more important contributions to optics may be found in Preston's "Theory of Light" (New York, 1891), or Wood's "Physical Optics" (New York, 1905). Fresnel gave a course of physics for some months at the Athenée in 1819, but otherwise had no academic connexions apart from his position as examiner at the Ecole Polytechnique. Mots of his researches were carried on in the leisure he could obtain from his professional duties. In applied optics mention should be made of his system of lenses developed during his connexion with the lighthouse commission which has revolutionized lighthouse illumination throughout the world. Fresnel was a deeply religious man and remarkable for his keen sense of duty. A three-volume edition of his complete works was published in 1866.

ARAGO, Oeuvres Complètes (Paris, 1854), I, 107-185; VERDET, Oeuvres Complètes d'Aug. Fresnel, introduction in vol. I (Paris, 1866); HELLER, Geschichte der Physik (Stuttgart, 1884), II.

H. M. BROCK

Friar

[From Lat. frater, through O. Fr. fredre, frere, M. E. frere; It. frate (as prefix fra); Sp. fraile (as prefix fray); Port. fret; unlike the other Romance languages French has but the one word frère for friar and brother].

A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders.

USE OF THE WORD

In the early Church it was usual for all Christians to address each other as fratres or brothers, all being children of the one Heavenly Father, through Christ. Later, with the rise and growth of the monastic orders, the appellation began gradually to have a more restricted meaning; for obviously the bonds of brotherhood were drawn more closely between those who lived under the rule and guidance of one spiritual father, their abbot. The word occurs at an early date in English literature with the signification of brother, and from the end of the thirteenth century it is in frequent use referring to the members of the mendicant orders, e.g. c. 1297, "frere prechors" (R. Glouc. 10105); c. 1325, "freres of the Carme and of Saint Austin" (Pol. Songs, 331), c. 1400, "frere meneours" (Maunder, xxxi, 139); c. 1400, "Sakked freres" (Rom. Rose). Shakespeare speaks of the "Friars of orders gray" (Tam. Shr., iv, i, 148). The word was also loosely applied to members of monastic and military orders, and at times to the convent of a particular order, and hence to the part of a town in which such a convent had been located.

The word friar is to be carefully distinguished in its application from the word monk. For the monk retirement and solitude are undisturbed by the public ministry, unless under exceptional circumstances. His vow of poverty binds him strictly as an individual but in no way affects the right of tenure of his order. In the life of the friar, on the contrary, the exercise of the sacred ministry is an essential feature, for which the life of the cloister is considered as but an immediate preparation. His vow of poverty, too, not only binds him as an individual to the exercise of that virtue, but, originally at least, precluded also the right of tenure in common with his brethren. Thus originally the various orders of friars could possess no fixed revenues and lived upon the voluntary offerings of the faithful. Hence their name of mendicants. This second feature, by which the friar's life differs so essentially from that of the monk, has become considerably modified since the Council of Trent. In Session XXV, ch. iii, "De Regular.", all the mendicant orders -- the Friars Minor and Capuchins alone excepted -- were granted the liberty of corporate possession. The Discalced Carmelites and the Jesuits have availed themselves of this privilege with restrictions (cf. Wernz, Jus Decretal., III, pt. II, 262, note). It may, however, be pertinently remarked here that the Jesuits, though mendicants in the strict sense of the word, as is evident from the very explicit declaration of St. Pius V (Const. "Cum indefessæ", 1571), are classed not as mendicants or friars, but as clerics regular, being founded with a view to devoting themselves, even more especially than the friars, to the exercise of the sacred ministry (Vermeersch, De Relig., I, xii, n. 8).

ORDERS OF FRIARS

The orders of friars are usually divided into two classes: the four great orders mentioned by the Second Council of Lyons (can. xxiii) and the lesser orders. The four great orders in their legal precedence are: (1) the Dominicans (St. Pius V, Const. "Divina", 1568); (2) the Franciscans; (3) the Carmelites, (4) the Augustinians.

• The Dominicans, or Friars Preachers, formerly known as the Black Friars, from the black cappa or mantle worn over their white habit, were founded by St. Dominic in 1215 and solemnly approved by Honorius III, in Dec., 1216. They became a mendicant order in 1221.
• The Franciscans, or Friars Minor (Grey Friars), were founded by St. Francis of Assisi, who is rightly regarded as the patriarch of the mendicant orders. His rule was orally approved by Innocent III in 1209 and solemnly confirmed by Honorius III in 1223 (Const. "Solet"). It is professed by the Friars Minor, the Conventuals, and the Capuchins.
• The Carmelites, or White Friars, from the white cloak which covers their brown habit, were founded as a purely contemplative order, but became mendicants in 1245. They received the approbation of Honorius III (Const. "Ut vivendi", 30 Jan., 1226) and later of Innocent IV (Const. "Quæ honorem", 1247). The order is divided into two sections, the Calced and Discalced Carmelites.
• The Augustinians, or Hermits of St. Augustine (Austin Friars), trace their origin to the illustrious Bishop of Hippo. The various branches which subsequently developed were united and constituted from various bodies of hermits a mendicant order by Alexander IV (Const. "Iis, quæ", 31 July, 1255, and Const. "Licet", 4 May, 1256).

These four orders are called by canonists the quatuor ordines mendicantes de iure communi. The Fourth Lateran Council ("De relic. dom.", III, tit. xxxvi, c. ix) had forbidden in 1215 the foundation of any new religious orders. In face of this prohibition a sufficient number of new congregations, especially of mendicants, had sprung up to attract the attention of the Second Council of Lyons. In canon xxiii, the council, while specially exempting the four mendicant orders above mentioned, condemns all other mendicant orders then existing to immediate or to gradual extinction. All orders established since the Council of Lateran, and not approved by the Holy See, were to be dissolved at once. Those since established with such approval were forbidden to receive new members. The illustrious order of Service, founded in 1233 and approved by Alexander IV in 1256 (Const. "Deo grata"), happily survived this condemnation. Concerning the four greater orders, the council concludes: "Be it understood, however, that we do not conceive of the extension of this constitution to the Orders of Friars Preachers and of Friars Minor, whose evident service to the universal Church is sufficient approval. As for the Hermits of St. Augustine and the Order of Caramelites, whose foundation preceded the said Council (Fourth Lateran), we wish them to remain as solidly established as heretofore" (Lib. III, tit. xvii, c. un., in VI). The importance of the orders thus singled out and exempted was afterwards still further emphasized by the insertion of this canon into the "Corpus Juri" in the "Liber Sixtus" of Boniface VIII.

The so-styled lesser orders, of which the following are today the most flourishing, were founded and approved at various subsequent periods: the Minims (1474), the Third Order Regular of St. Francis (1521); the Capuchin -- as constituting a different branch of the Franciscan Order -- (1525); the Discalced Caramelizes -- as constituting a distinct branch of the Caramelizes -- (1568); the Discalced Trinitarians (1599); the Order of Penance, known in Italy as the Scalzetti (1781).

REIFENSTUEL, SCHMALZGRUEBER, and other writers on titles xxxi and xxxvi of Bk. III of the Decretals of Gregory IX; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca: Relig. Regulares (Rome, 1885-96), I, 24; SUAREZ, De Virtute et Statu Religionis (Mainz, 1604), pt. II tract. ix; BARBOSA, Juri Eccl. Universi (Lyons, 1699), I, c. xli, n. 207; VERMEERSCH, De Relig. Inst. et Personis (2nd ed. Bruges, 1907), I, 38; WERNZ, Jus Decretal. (Rome, 1908), III pt. II, 262; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen (2nd ed., Paderborn, 1907) 1, 39; alas popular works, with plates showing the different religious habits, such as MALLESON AND TUKER, Handbook to Christian and Ecclesiastical Rome, III (London, 1900); STEELE, Monasteries and Religious Houses in Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1903). HÉLYOT, Hist. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1714-19); republished by MIGNE as Dict. de ordres religieux (Paris, 1847-69).

GREGORY CLEARY

Order of Friars Minor

(Also known as FRANCISCANS.) This subject may be conveniently considered under the following heads:

I. General History of the Order;

A. First Period (1209-1517);

B. Second Period (1517-1909);

II. The Reform Parties;

A. First Period (1226-1517);

B. Second Period (1517-1897);

(1) The Discalced;

(2) The Reformanti;

(3) The Recollects, including a survey of the history of the Franciscans in the North, especially in Great Britain and Ireland (America is treated in a separate article);

III. Statistics of the Order (1260-1909);

IV. The Various Names of the Friars Minor;

V. The Habit;

VI. The Constitution of the Order;

VII. General Sphere of the Order's Activity;

VIII. The Preaching Activity of the Order;

IX. Influence of the Order on the Liturgy and Religious Devotions;

X. Franciscan Missions;

XI. Cultivation of the Sciences;

XII. Saints and Beati of the Order.

I. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE ORDER

A. First Period (1209-1517)

Having gathered about twelve disciples around him (1207-08), St. Francis of Assisi appeared before Innocent III, who, after some hesitation, gave verbal sanction to the Franciscan Rule. Thus was legally founded the Order of Friars Minor (Ordo Fratrum Minorum), the precise date being, according to an ancient tradition in the order, 16 April, 1209. His friars having rapidly increased in number and spread over various districts of Italy, St. Francis appointed, in 1217, provincial ministers (ministri provinciales), and sent his disciples farther afield. At the general chapter of 1219 these missions were renewed and other friars dispatched to the East, to Hungary, to France, and to Spain. Francis himself visited Egypt and the East, but the innovations introduced during his absence by some of the friars caused his speedy return in 1220. In the same year he resigned the office of general of the order, which he entrusted first to Peter of Cattaneo, on whose early death (10 March, 1221) he appointed Elias of Cortona. Francis, however, retained a certain supreme direction of the order until his death on 3 October, 1226.

Elias of Cortona, as the vicar of Francis, summoned the regular Pentecost chapter for the following year, and on 29 May, 1227, Giovanni Parenti, a jurist, was chosen as first successor of St. Francis and first minister-general. He has often been regarded as a native of Florence, but probably came from the neighbourhood of Rome. Gregory IX employed the new general on political missions at Florence and Rome, authorized the Minorites to lay out their own cemeteries (26 July, 1227), and charged them with the direction and maintenance of the Poor Clares (1 December, 1227). In 1228 and the succeeding years, Elias of Cortona laboured zealously at the construction of a church to be dedicated to Francis of Assisi, who was canonized by Gregory IX on 16 July, 1228. On the day following the pope himself laid the foundation stone of this church at Assisi destined to receive the body of St. Francis, and he shortly afterwards entrusted to Thomas of Celano the task of writing the biography of the saint, which he confirmed on 25 February, 1229. The translation of the saint's body from the church of San Giorgio to the new basilica took place on 22 May, 1230, three days before the appointed time, and Elias of Cortona, possibly fearing some disturbance, took possession of the body, with the assistance of the civic authorities, and buried it in the church, where it was discovered in 1818. Elias was censured and punished for this action in the Bull of 16 June, 1230. The usual general chapter was held about the same date, and on 28 September, 1230, the Bull "Quo elongati" was issued, dealing with the Testament of St. Francis and certain points in the Rule of 1223. Elias meanwhile devoted all his energy to the completion of the magnificent church (or rather double church) of S. Francesco, which stands on the slope of a hill in the western portion of Assisi, and of the adjacent monastery with its massive pillars and arcades. His election as general in1232 gave him freer scope, and enabled him to realize the successful issue of his plans. As a politicain, Elias certainly possessed genius. His character, however, was too ostentatious and worldly, and, though under his rule the order developed externally and its missions and studies were promoted, still in consequence of his absolutism, exercised now with haughty bearing and again through reckless visitors, there arose in the order an antagonism to his government, in which the Parisian masters of theology and the German and English provinces played the most prominent part. Unable to stem this opposition, Elias was deposed, with Gregory IX's approval, by the Chapter of Rome (1239), and the hitherto undefined rights and almost absolute authority of the general in matters of income and legislation for the order were considerably restricted. Elias threw in his lot with Frederick II (Hohenstaufen), was excommunicated in consequence, and died on 22 April, 1253. Albert of Pisa, who had previously been provincial of Germany and Hungary, was chosen at the chapter of 1239 to succeed Elias, but died shortly afterwards (23 January, 1240). On All Saints' Day, 1240, the chapter again met and elected Haymo of Faversham, a learned and zealous English Franciscan, who had been sent by Gregory IX (1234) to Constantinople to promote the reunion of the Schismatic Greeks with the Apostolic See. Haymo, who, with Alexander of Hales had taken part in the movement against Elias, was zealous in his visitation of the various houses of the order. He held the Provincial Chapter of Saxonia at Aldenburg on 29 September, 1242, and, at the request of Gregory IX, revised the rubrics to the Roman Breviary and the Missal.

After Haymo's death in 1244 the General Chapter of Genoa elected Crescenzio Grizzi of Jesi (1245-47) to succeed him. Crescenzio instituted an investigation of the life and miracles of St. Francis and other Minorites, and authorized Thomas of Celano to write the "Legenda secunda S. Francisci", based on the information (Legenda trium Sociorum) supplied to the general by three companions of the saint (Tres Socii, i.e. Leo, Angelus, and Rufinus). From this period also dates the "Dialogus de vistis Sanctorum Fratrum Minorum." This general also opposed vigorously the separationist and particularistric tendencies of some seventy-two of the brothers. The town of Assisi asked for him as its bishop, but the request was not granted by Innocent IV, who, on 29 April, 1252, appointed him Bishop of jesi, in the March of Ancona, his native town. John of Parma, who succeeded to the generallship (1247-57), belonged to the more rigorous party in the order. He was most diligent in visiting in person the various houses of the order. it was during this period that Thomas of Celano wrote his "Tractatus de Miraculis". On 11 August, 1253, Clare of Assisi died, and was canonized by Alexander IV on 26 September, 1255. On 25 May, 1253, a month after the death of the excommunicated Elias, Innocent consecrated the upper church of S. Francesco, John of Parma unfortunately shared the apocalyptic views and fancies of the Joachimites, or followers of Jeachim of Floris, who had many votaries in the order, and was consequently not a little compromised when Alexander IV (4 November, 1255) solemnly condemned the "Liber introductorius", a collection of the writings of Joachim of Floris with an extravagant introduction, which had been published at Paris. This work has often been falsely ascribed to the general himself. its real author was Gerardo di Borgo S.-Donnino, who thus furnished a very dangerous weapon against the order to the professors of the secular clergy, jealous of the success of the Minorites at the University of Paris. The chapter convened in the Ara Coeli monastery at Rome forced John of Parma to abdicate his office (1257) and, on his recommendation, chose as his successor St. Bonaventure from Bagnorea. John was then summoned to answer for his Joachimism before a court presided over by the new general and the cardinal-protector, and would have been condemned but for the letter of Cardinal Ottoboni, afterwards Adrian V. He subsequently withdrew to the hermitage of Greccio, left it (1289) at the command of the pope to proceed to Greece, but died an aged broken man at Camerino on 20 March, 1289.

St. Bonaventure, learned and zealous religious, devoted all his energy to the government of the order. He strenuously advocated the manifold duties thrust upon the order during its historical development -- the labour in the care of souls, learned pursuits, employment of friars in the service of the popes and temporal rulers, the institution of large monasteries, and the preservation of the privileges of the order -- being convinced that such a direction of the activities of the members would prove most beneficial to the Church and the cause of Christianity. The Spirituals accused Bonaventure of laxity; yet he laboured earnestly to secure the exact observance of the rule, and energetically denounced the abuses which had crept into the order, condemning them repeatedly in his encyclical letters. In accordance with the rule, he held a general chapter every three years: at Narbonne in 1260, at Pisa in 1263, at Paris in 1266, at Assisi in 1269, and at Lyons in 1274, on the occasion of the general council. He made most of the visitations to the different convents in person, and was a zealous preacher. The Chapter of Narbonne (1260) promulgated the statutes of the order known as the "Constitutiones Narbonenses", the letter and spirit of which exercised a deep and enduring influence on the Fransican Order. Although the entire code did not remain long in force, many of the provisions were retained and served as a model for the later constitutions.

Even before the death of Bonaventure, during one of the sessions of the council (15 July, 1274), the Chapter of Lyons had chosen as his successor Jerome of Ascoli, who was expected by the council with the ambassadors of the Greek Church. He arrived, and the reunion of the churches was effected. Jerome was sent back by Innocent V as nuncio to Constantinople In May, 1276, but had only reached Ancona when the pope died (21 July, 1276). John XXI (1276-77) employed Jerome (October, 1276) and John of Vercelli, General of the Dominicans, as mediators in the war between Philip III of France and Alfonso X of Castile. This embassy occupied both genrals till March, 1279, although Jerome was preferred to the cardinalate on 12 march, 1278. When Jerome departed on the embassy to the Greeks, he had appointed Bonagratia of S. Giovanni in Persiceto to represent him at the General Chapter of Padua in 1276. On 20 May, 1279, he convened the General Chapter of Assisi, at which Bonagratia was elected general. Jerome later occupied the Chair of Peter as Nicholas IV (15 February, 1288-4 April, 1292). bonagratia conducted a deputation from the chapter before Nicholas III, who was then staying at Soriano, and petitioned for a cardinal-protector. The pope, who had himself been protector, appointed his nephew Matteo Orsini. The general also asked for a definition of the rule, which the pope, after personal consultation with cardinals and the theologians of the order, issued in the "Exiit qui seminat" of 14 August, 1279. In this the order's complete renunciation of property in communi was again confirmed, and all property given to the brothers was vested in the Holy See, unless the donor wished to retain his title. All moneys were to be held in trust by the nuntii, or spiritual friends, for the friars, who could however raise no claim to them. The purchase of goods could take place only through procurators appointed by the pope, or by the cardinal-protector in his name.

The Bull of Martin IV "Ad fructus uberes" (13 December, 1281) defined the relations of the mendicants to the secular clergy. The mendicant orders had long been exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop, and enjoyed (as distinguished from the secular clergy) unrestricted freedom to preach and hear confessions in the churches connected with their monasteries. This had led to endless friction and open quarrels between the two divisions of the clergy, and, although Martin Iv granted no new privileges to the mendicants, the strife now broke out with increased violence, chiefly in France and in a particular manner at Paris. Boniface VIII adjusted their relations in the Bull "Super cathedram" of 18 February, 1300, granting the mendicants freedom to preach in their own churches and in public places, but not at the time when the prelate of the district was preaching. For the hearing of confessions, the mendicants were to submit suitable candidates to the bishop in office, and obtain his anction. The faithful were left free in regard to funerals, but, should they take place in the church of a cloister, the quarta funerum was to be given to the parish priest. Benedict XI abrogaated this Bull, but Clement V reintroduced it (1312). Especially conspicuous among the later contentions over the privileges of the mendicants were those caused by John of Poliaco, a master of theology of Paris (1320) and by Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh (1349). In 1516 the Fifth Council of the Lateran dealt with this question, which was definitively settled by the Council of Trent.

In the Bull "Exultantes" of 18 January, 1283, Martin IV instituted the syndici Apostolici. This was the name given to the men appointed by the ministers and custodians to receive in the name of the Holy See the alms given to the Franciscans, and to pay it out again at their request. The syndici consequently replaced the nuntii and procurators. All these regulations were necessary in consequence of the rule of poverty, the literal and unconditional observance of which was rendered impossible by the great expansion of the order, by its pursuit of learning, and the accumulated property of the large cloisters in the towns. The appointment of these trustees, however, was neither subversive of nor an evasion of the rule, but rather the proper observance of its precepts under the altered conditions of the ime. Under Bonagratia (1279-83) and his immediate successors Arlotto da Prato (1285-86), and Matthew of Acquasparta (1287-89), a learned theologian and philosopher who became cardinal in 1288 and rendered notable service to the Church, the Spiritual movement broke out in the Province of Ancona, under the leadership of Pietro Giovanni Olivi, who, after the General Chapter of Strasburg (1282), caused the order considerable trouble. The general, Raimondo Gaufredi (Geoffrey) of Provence (1289-95), favoured the Spirituals and denounced the lax interpretations of the Community, i.e. the majority of the order who opposed the minority, termed Spirituals or Zelanti. Raimondo even ventured to revise the genral constitutions at the General Chapter of Paris in 1292, whereupon, having refused the Bishopric of Padua offered him by Boniface VIII, he was compelled by the pope to resign his office. Giovanni Minio of Muravalle, in the March of Ancona, a master of theology, was elected general by the Chapter of Anangi (1294), and although created Cardinal-Bishop of Porto (Portuensis) in 1302, continued to govern the order until Gonzalves of Valleboa (1304-13), Provincial of Santiago, Spain, was elected to succeed him by the Chaper of Assisi.

In his encyclical of 1302, Giovanni Minio had inculcated the rule of poverty, and forbidden both the accumulation of property and vested incomes. Gonzálvez followed the same policy (12 February, 1310), and the Chapter of Padua (1310) made the precept still more rigorous by enoining the "simple use" (usus pauper) and withdrawing the right of voting at the chapter from convents which did not adopt it. The usus pauper had indeed been a source of contention from 1290, especially in Provence, where some denied that it was binding on the order. These dissensions led to the Magna Disputatio at Avignon (1310-12), to which Clement V summoned the leaders of the Spirituals and of the Community or Relaxati. Clement laid the strife by his bull and Decretal "Exivi di Paradiso", issued at the third and last session of the Council of Vienne, 5 May, 1312. The prescriptions contained in the Franciscan Rule were divided into those which bound under pain of mortal, and those which bound under pain of venial sin. those enjoining the renunciation of property and the adoption of poverty were retained: the Franciscans were entitled only to the usus (use) of goods given to them, and wherever the rule prescibed it, only to the usus pauper or arctus (simple use). All matters concerning the Franciscan habit, and all the storehouses and cellars allowed in cases of necessity, were referred to the discretion of the superiors of the order.

The Spirituals of Provence and Tuscany, however, were not yet placated. At the General Chapter of Barcelona (1313), a Parisian master of theology, Alexander of Alessandria (Lombardy), was chosen to succeed Gonzálvez, but died in October, 1314. The General Chapter of Naples (1316) elected Michael of Cesena, a moderate Conventual. The commission appointed by this chapter altered the general statutes of the rule of poverty. The Spirituals immediately afterwards rekindled the property strife, but John XXIII interdicted and suppressed their peculiar notions by the Constitution "Quorumdam exigit" (7 October, 1317), thus completely restoring the official unity of the order. In 1321, however, the so-called theoretical discussion on poverty broke out, the inquisitor, John of Belna, a Dominican, having taked exception to the statement that Christ and the Apostles possessed property neither in communi nor in speciali (i.e. neither in common nor individually). The ensuing strife degenerated into a fierce scholastic disputation between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, and, as the pope favoured the views of the latter, a very dangerous crisis seemed to threated the Minorites. By the Constitution "Ad conditorem canonum" (8 December, 1322) John XXII renounced the title of the Church to all the possessions of the friars Minor, and restored the ownership to ther order. This action, contrary to the practice and expressed sentiments of his predecessors, placed the Minorites on exactly the same footing as the other orders, and was a harsh provision for an order which had laboured so untiringly in the interests of the Church. In many other ways, however, John fostered the order. It will thus be readily understood why the members inclined to laxity joined the diaffected party, leaving but few advocated of John's regulations. To the dissenting party belonged Gerardus Odonis (1329-42), the general, whose election at Paris in 1329 John had secured inteh place of his powerful opponent Michael of Cesena. Odonis, however, was supported only by the minority of the order in his efforts to effect the abolition of the rule of poverty. The deposed general and his followers, the Michaelites (cf. FRATICELLI), were disavowed by the General Chapter of Paris, and the order remained faithful to the Holy See. The constitutions prescribed by Benedict XII, John's successor, in his Bull of 28 November, 1336, and the name "Constitutiones Catarcenses" or "Benedictinae"), contained not a single reference tot he rule of poverty. Benedict died in 1342, and on the preferment of Gerardus Odonis to the Patriarchate of Antioch, Fortanerio Vassalli was chosen general (1343-47).

Under Guilllaume Farinier (1348-57) the Chapter of Marseilles resolved to revive the old statues, a purpose which was realized in the general constitutions promulgated by the General Chapter of Assisi in 1354 ("Constitutiones Farineriae or guilemi"). This code was based on the "Constitutioners Narboneses" (1260), and the Bulls "Exiit" and "Exivi", but the edicts of John XXII, being promulgated by the pope over and above the chapter, still continued in force. The great majority of the friars accomodated themselves to these regulations and undertook the care and proprietorship of their goods, which they entrusted to fratres procuratores elected from among themselves. The protracted strife of the deposed general (Michael of Cesna) with the pope, in which the general was supported with conspicuous learning by some of the leading members of the order and encouraged by the German emperor Louis IV (the Bavarian), for reasons of secular and ecclesiastical polity, gave great and irresistible impulse to laxity in the order, and prejudiced the founder's ideal. It was John XXII who had introduced Conventualism is the later sense of the workd, that is, community of goods, income and property as in other religious orders, in contradiction to Observantism or the strict observance of the rule, a movement now strong within the order, acrding to which the members were to hold no property in communi and renounce all vested incomes and accumulation of goods. The Bull "Ad conditorem", so significant in the history of the order, was only withdrawn 1 November, 1428, by Martin V.

Meanwhile the development of Conventualism had been fostered in many ways. In 1348 the Black Death swept devastatingly over Euope, empting town and cloister. The wealth of the order increaded rapidly, and thousands of new brothers were admitted without sufficiently close examination into their eligibility. The liverality of the faithful was also, if not a source of danger for the Minorites, at least a constant incitement ot depart to some extent from the rule of poverty. This liberality showed itself mainly in gifts of real property, for example in endowments for prayers for the dead, which were then usually founded with real estate. In the fourteenth century also began the land wars and feuds (e.g. the Hundred Years War in France), which relaxed every bond of discipline and good order. The current feelings of anarchic irresponsibility were also encouraged by the Great Wester Schism, during which men quarreled not only concerning obedience to the papacy, to which there were three claimants since the Council of Pisa, but also concerning obedience to the generals of the order, whose number tallied with the number of the popes.

Guillaume Farinier was named cardinal in 1356, but continued to govern the order until the election of Jean Bouchier (de Buco) in 1357. John having died in 1358, mark of Viterbo was chosen to succeed him (1359-66), it being deemed desirable to elect an italian, the preceding four generals having been French, Mark was raised to the cardinalate in 1366, and was succeeded by Thomas of Farignano (1367-72), who became Patriarch of Grado in 1372, and cardinal in 1378. Leonardo Rossi of Giffone (1373-78) succeeded Thomas as general, and supported Clemens VII during the schism. This action gave umbrage to Urban VI, who deposed him and named Ludovico Donato his successor. Ludovico was also chosen in 1379 by the General Chapter of Gran in Hungary at which, however, only twelve provinces were represented, was named cardinal in 1381, but was executed in 1385 with some other cardinals for participating in a conspiracy against Urban VI. His third successor, Enrico Alfieri (1387-1405), could only bewail the privileges subversive of discipline, by means of which the claimants to the papacy sought to bind their supporters more closely to themselves. Alfieri's successor, Antonio de Pireto (1405-21), gave his allegiance to the Council of Pisa and Alexander V (1409-15), a man of no great importance. With the election of Martin V (1417-31) by the Council of Constance, unity was restored in the order, which was then in a state of the greatest confusion.

The Observance (Regularis Observantia) had meanwhile prepard the ground for a regeneration of the order. At first no uniform movements, but varying in different lands, it was given a definite character by St. Bernardine of Siena (q.v.) and St. John Capistran. In Italy as early as 1334 Giovanni de Valle had begun at San Bartolomeo de Brugliano, near Forligno, to live in exact accordance with the rule but without that exemption from the order, which was later forbidden by Clement VI in 1343. It is worthy of notice that Clement, in 1350, granted this exemption to the lay brother Gentile da Spoleto, a companion of Giovanni, but Gentile gathered together such a disorderly rabble, including some of the heretical Fraticelli, that the privilege was withdrawn (1354), he was expelled from the order (1355), and cast into prison. Amongst his faithful adherents was Paoluccio Vagnozzi of Trinci, who was allowed by the general to return to Brugliano in 1368. As a protection against the snakes so numerous in the district, wooden slippers (calepodia, zoccoli) were worn by the brothers, and, as their use continued in the order the Observants were long known as the Zoccolanti or lignipedes. In 1373 Paoluccio's followers occcupied ten small houses in ubria, to which was soon added San Damiano at Assisi. They were supported by Gregory XI, and also, after some hesitation, by the superiors of the order. In 1388, Enrico Alfineri, the general appointed Paoluccio commissary general of his followers, whom he allowed to be sent into all the districts of italy as an incentive to the rest of the order. Paoluccio died on 17 September, 1390, and was succeeded by John of Stroncone (d. 1418). In 1414, this reform possessed thirty-four houses, to which the Porziuncola was added in 1514.

In the fourteenth centry there were three Spanish provinces: that of Portugal (also called Santiago), that of Castile, and that of Aragon. Although houses of the reformers in which the rule was rididly observed existed in each of these provinces about 1400, there does not appear to have been any connection between the reforms of each province -- much less between these reforms and the Italian Observance -- and consquently the part played by Peter of Villacreces in Silos and Aguilera has been greatly exaggerated.

Independent also was the Reform or Observance in France, which had its inception in 1358 (or more accuratley in 1388) in the cloister at Mirabeau in the province of Touraine, and thence spread through Burgundy, Touraine, and Franconia. In 1407 Benedict XIII exempted them from all jurisdiction of the provincials, and on 13 May, 1408, gave them a vicar-general in the person of Thomas de Curte. In 1414 about two hundred of their number addressed a petition to the Council fo Constance, which thereupon granted to the friars of the stricta observantia regularis a special provincial vicar in every province, and a vicar-general over all, Nicholas Rodolphe being the first to fill the last-mentioned office. Angelo Salvetti, general of the order (1421-24), viewed these changes with marked disfavour, but Martin V's protection prevented him from taking any steps to defeat their aim. Far more opposed was Salvetti's successor, Antonio de Masso (1424-30). The ranks of the Observants increased rapidly in France and Spain in consequence of the exemption. The Italian branch, however, refused to avail themselves of any exemption from the usual superiors, the provincial and the general.

In Germany the Observance appeared about 1420 in the province of Cologne at the monastery of Gouda (1418), in the province of Saxony in the Mark of Brandenburg (1425); in the upper German province first at the Heidelberg monastery (1426). Cloisters of the Observants already existed in Bosnia, Russia, Hungary, and even in Tatary. In 1430 martin V (1417-31) summoned the whole order, Observants and Conventuals, to the general Chapter of Assisi (1430), "in order that our desire for a general reform of the order may be fulfilled." William of Casale (1430-42) was elected general, but the intellectual leader of Assisi was St. John Capistran. The statues promulgated by this chapter are called the "Constitutiones Martinianae" from the name of the pope. They cancelled the offices of general and provincial vicars of the Observants and introduced a scheme for the general reform of the order. All present at the chapter had bound themselves on oath to carry out its decisions, but six weeks later (27 July, 1430) the general was released from his oath and obtained from Martin V the Brief "Ad statum" (23 August, 1430), which allowed the Conventuals to hold property like all other orders. This Brief constituted the Magna Charta of the Conventuals, and henceforth any reform of the order on the lines of the rule was out of the question.

The strife between the Observants and the Conventuals now broke out with such increased fury that even St. John Capistran laboured for a division of the order which was however still longer opposed by St. Bernadine of Siena. Additional bitterness was lent to the strife when in many instance princes and towns forcibly withdrew the ancient Fraciscan monasteries from the Conventuals and turned them over to the Observants. In 1438 the general of the order named St. Bernardine of Siena, first Vicar-General of the Italian Observants, an office in which Bernardine was succeeded by St. John Capistran in 1441. At the General Chapter of Padua (1443), Albert Berdini of Sarteano, an Observant, would have been chosen general in accordance with the papa; wish had not his election been opposed by St. Bernardine. Antonio de Rusconibus (1443-50) was accordingly elected, and, until the separation in 1517, no Observant held the office of general. In 1443 Antonio appointed two vicars-general to direct the Observants -- for the cismontane family (i.e. for Italy, the East, Austria-Hungary, and Poland) St. John Capistran, and for the ultramontane (all other countries, including afterwards America) jean Perioche of Maubert. By the so-called Separation bull of Eugene IV, "Ut sacra ordinis minorum" (11 January, 1446), outlined by St. John Capistran, the office of the vicar-general of the Observants was declared permanent, and made practically independent of the minister general of the order, but the Observants might not hold a general chapter seperate from the rest of the order. After the canonization in 1450 of Bernardine of Siena (d. 1444), the first saint of the Observants, John Capistran with the assistance of the zealous cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (d. 1464), extended the Observance so greatly in Germany, that he could henceforth disregard the attacks of the lax and time-serving sections of the order. At the Chapter of Barcelona, in 1451, the so-called "Statuta Barchnionensia" were promulgated. Though somewhat modifies these continued in force for centuries in the ultramontane family.

The compromise essayed by St. James of the March in 1455 was inherently hopeless, although it granted to the vicars of the Observants active voting power at the general chapters. On this compromise was based the "Bulla concordiae" of Callistus III (2 February, 1456), which Pius II withdrew (11 October, 1458). The Chapter of Perugia (1464) elected as general Francesco della rovere (1464-69), who was elevated to the cardinalate in 1468, and later elected pope under the title of Sixtus IV (1471-84). Sixtus granted various privileges to the Fransicans in his Bull "Mare magnum" (1474) and his "Bulla aurea" (1479), but was rather more kindly disposed towards the Conventuals, to whome he had belonged. The generals Francesco Nanni (1475-99), to whom Sixtus gave the sobriquet of Samson to signalize his victory in a disputation on the Immaculate Conception, and Egidio Delfini (1500-06) displayed a strong bias in favour of the reform of the Conventuals, Edigio using as his pleas the so-called "Constitutiones Alexandrinae" sanctioned by Alexander VI in 1501. His zeal was far surpassed in Spain by that of the powerful Minorite, Francisco Ximenes de los Cisneros, who expelled from the cloisters all Conventuals opposed to the reform. At Paris, Delfini won the large house of studies to the side of the reformers. The Capitulum generalissimum at Rome in 1506 was expected to bring about the union of the various branches, but the proposed plan did not find acceptance, and the statutes, drawn up by the chapter and published in 1508 under the title "Statuta Iulii II", could not bridge the chasm separating the parties. After long deliberations had taken place under generals Rainaldo Graziani (1506-09), Philip of Bagnacavallo (1509-11), and Bernardino Prato da Chieri (1513-17), the last general of the united order, leo X summoned on 11 July, 1516, a capitulum generalissimum to meet at rone onf the feast of Pentecost (31 May), 1517. This chapter first suppressed all the reformed congregations and annexed them to the Observants; declared the Observants an independent order, the true Order of St. Francis, and separated them completely from the Conventuals. The General of the Observants received the title of Minister Generalis totius ordinis Fratrum Minorum, with or without the addition regularis Observantiae, and was entrusted with the ancient seal of the order. His period of office was limited to six years, and he was to be chosen alternately from the familia cismontana and the familia ultramontana -- a regulation which has not not been observed. For the other family a Commissarius generalis is always elected. In processions, etc., the Observants take precedence of the Conventuals.

B. Second period (1517-1909)

Christoforo Numai of Friuli was elected first General of the Reformed Order of Franciscans (Ordo Fratrum Minorum), but was raised a month later to the cardinalate. Francesco Lichetto (1518-20) was chosen as his successor by the Chapter of Lyons (1518), where the deliberations centered around the necessary rearrangement of the order in provinces and the promulgation of new general constitutions, which were based on the statutes of Barcelona (1451, cf. supra). Lichetto and his successors -- Paul of Soncino (1520-23), who died in 1523, and Francisco de Angelis Quiñones (1523-28), a Spaniard, diligently devoted themselves to establishing the Observance on a firm basis. Quinones was named cardinal in 1528, and the new general, Paolo Pisotti (1529-33), unfortunately disregarding the ideal of his predecessors and failing entirely to grasp the significance of the reforms afoot at the time (for example that of the the Capuchins), was deposed in 1533. In 1547 the Chapter of Assisi prescribed gray as the colour of the Franciscan habit, in accordance with the custom of the Observants and forbade the wearing in beards. At the General Chapter of Salamanca (1554), Clemente Dolera of Moneglia, the general in office promulgated new statutes for the cismontane family. On the preferment of clemente to the cardinalate in 1557, Francesco Zamora, his successor (1559-65), defended at the Council of Trent the order's rule of poverty, which was then sanctioned by the council for the Observants and Capuchins. Under Luigi Pozzo (Puteus), the next general (1565-71), the Spanish Conventuals were united with the Observants by command of the pope, and a general reunion of the separated braches of th order seemed imminent. The two succeeding generals, Christophe de Cheffontaines, a Frenchman (1571-79), and Francisco Gonzaga (1579-87), laboured industriously for the rigorous observance and the rule of poverty, which was rather loosely interpreted, especially in France. Gonzaga reformed the great convent of studies at Paris and, in 1581, was appointed, in opposition to his wishes, Bishop of Cefalu (Sicily) and afterwards of Mantua, where he died in the odour of sanctity, in 1620. The process for his beatification is pending at Rome. Francis of Toulouse (1587-93) and Bonaventura Secusi of Caltagirone (Sicily, 1593-1600) were employed frequently on embassies by the popes, and revised the constitutions of the order, in which however, the alterations were too frequent. Finally at the Chapter of Segovia in 1621, the minister general, Benignus of Genoa (1618-25), approved the "Statuta Segoviensia" for the ultramontane family, with suitable additions both for the French and for the German-Belgian nation. Thereafter the latter nation adhered most perseveringly to the principles of these statutes; that their consistency in this respect has proved a source of prosperity, vigour, and inner strength is universally known.

About this period the so-called Counter-Reformation was bursting into vigorous life in the North and the order entered on a new period of strenuous vitality. The Reformation had dealt a terrible blow to the Franciscans in these parts, annihilating in many instances entire provinces. Supported now by the emperor and the Catholic princes, they advance to regain their old position and to found new cloisters, from which they could minister to their flocks. To bring into subjection the four rather lax French provinces which were known as the Provinciae confaederatae and were thenceforward always too much inclined to shelter themselves behind the government, the general, Bernardine of Sena (Portugal, 1625-33), obtained from Urban VIII the Bull of 1 October, 1625. The French, indeed, justly complained that the general of the order was always chosen from Italy or from Spain. The privilege unsurped by the Spanish kings, of exerting a certain influence in the election and indeed securing that the general should be alternately a Spaniard and an Italian (but one from the Crown lands of Spain), was in contradiciton to all Fraciscan statutes and laws. The Spanish generals, furthermore resided usually at Madrid, instead of at Rome, and most of the higher offices were occupied by Spaniards -- an anomalous situation which aroused great resentment amongst the friars of other nations, especially France and in Italy, and continued until 1834. This introduction of national politics into the government of the oder proved as noxious to the interests of the Friars Minor as the established churches of the eighteenth century did to the cause of Christianity.

Generals Juan Merinero of Madrid (1639-45), Giovanni Mazzara of Naples (1645-48), and Pedro Mancro (1651-55) tried without success to give definite statutes to the cismontane family, while the "Constitutiones Sambucanae", drawn up by General Michele Buongiorno of Sambuca (1658-64) at the order of the general chapter, did not remain long in force. Ildefonso Salizanes (1664-70) and Francesco Maria Rhini (1670-74) were both raised to the espiscopate. José Ximenes Samaniego (1676-82) zealously eradicated abuses which had crept into the order especially in Spain and France, and died as Bishop of Placencia in Spain (1692). Ildefonso Biezma (1702-16) and José García (1717-23) were appointed by papal Briefs. The next general was the famous Lorenzo Cozza (1723-27) who, as Custos of the Holy Land, had obviated a schism of the Maronites. He was created cardinal by Benedict XIII. At the Chapter of Milan (1729), Juan Soto was elected general (1729-36), and during his period of office had the statutes of the order collected, rearranged, and then published in 1734. Raffaello de Rossi (1744-50) gave the province (otherwise known as the custody) of the Holy Land its definitve constitution. From 1700 to 1723 no general chapter could be held in consequence of the continuous state of unrest caused by the wars and other dissensions. These disputes made their appearance even in the order itself, and were fanned to a flame by the rivalry between the nations and between the different reform branches, the most heated contention being between the Observants and the Reformanti. The domestic discipline of the order thus became very slack in certain districts, although the personale of the friars Minor was at this time unusually high. Benedict XIII vainly endeavoured in 1727 to cement a union between the various branches (Observants, Reformanti, Recollects, and Discalced). The general chapter of 1750, at which Benedict XIV presided and warmly praised the order, elected Pedro Joannetio of Molina (1750-56) -- the only Discalced who has been general. Clemente Guignoni of Palemo followed (1756-62), and then Joannetio was elected general for the second time (1762-68), this occurrence being absolutly unique in the history of the order. Paschale Frosconi (1768-91) of Milan tried in vain on several occasions to hold a general chapter. During his long period of office, the Spaniards endeavoured to break away from the order (1774), and the evil effect of Gallicanism and Febronianism were being already universally felt, kings and princes suppressing many of the cloisters or forbidding intercourse with Rome. In 1766 Louis XV established in France the Commission des Reguliers, which, presided over by Cardinal de Brienne and conducted with the greatest perfidy, brought about in 1771 a union between the Conventuals and the French Observants. The former had but three provinces with forty-eight monasteries, while the latter had seven provinces and 287 monasteries. The French Observants, however, were always somewhat inclined towards laxity, particularly in regard to the rule of poverty, and had obtained in 1673 and 1745 a papal Brief, which allowed them to retain real estate and vested incomes. The French Revolution brought about the annihilation of the order in France.

In Bavaria (1769) and many other German principalities, spiritual and secular, the order was suppressed, but nowhere more thoroughly than in the Austrian and Belgian states of Joseph II and in the Kingdom of the two Sicilies (1788) then ruled by Ferdinand IV. On the death of Pasquale (1791) Pius VI appointed as general a Spaniard, Joachim Compan;y (1792-1806). In 1804, the Spanish Franciscans effected, with the assistance of the King of Spain, their complete separation from the order, although the semblances of unity was still retained by the provision of Pius VII, that the general should be chosen alternately from the Spaniards and the other nation, and that, during his term of office, the other division of the order should be governed by an autonomous vicar-general. During 1793 and 1794 the order was extinct in France and Belgium; and from 1803 in most districts in Germany; from 1775 on, it was sadly reduced in Austria, and also in Italy, where it was suppressed in 1810. The devastation of the order and the confusion consequent on it were deplorable. The generals appointed by the pope, Ilario Cervelli (1806-14), Gaudenzio Patrignani (1814-17), Cirillo Almeda y Brea (1817-24), and Giovanni Tecca of Capistrano (1824-30), ruled over but a faction of the order, even though prospects were somewhat brighter about this period. In 1827, Tecca published the statutes which had been drawn up in 1768. Under the Spanish general, Luis Iglesias (1830-34), the formal separation of Spanish Fraciscans from the main body of the order was completed (1832), but in 1833 most of their monasteries were destroyed during the Peasants' War and the revolution. The general Bartolomé Altemir (1834-38) was banished from Spain, and died at Bordeaux in 1843, Giuseppe Maria Maniscalco of Alessandira (1838-44) being named his successor by Gregory XVI. The pope also appointed the two succeeding generals, Luigi di Loreta (1844-50) and two succeeding generals, Luigi di Loreta (1844-50) and Venanzio di Celano (1850-56). The former, in 1849, named Giuseppe Aréso Commissary of the Holy Land. In 1851, Aréso opened the first monastery at Saint-Palais.

About this period Benigno da Valbona introduced the Reformati into France, and in 1852 founded their first monastery at Avignon, while Venanzio as general laboured indefatigably for the resucitation of the Observants in the same country, founding new missions and raising the standard of studies. In Russia and Poland, however, many monasteries were suppressed in 1831 and 1842, a general strangulation being afterwards effected by the ukase of 1864. In 1856, at the general chapter in the Ara Coceli at Rome, under the personal presidency of Pope Pius IX, Bernardino Trionfetti of Montefranco was elected general (1856-62). The monasteries of Italy were suppressed by the Piedmontese in 1866, during the generalship of Raffaello Lippi of Ponticulo (1862-69) and in 1873 their fate was shared by the houses of the previously immune Roman province. Bowed with grief and years, the general abdicated (1869), and, as a general chapter was impossible, Pius IX preferred one of the Reformanti Bernardino del Vago of Portogruaro (Portu Romatino) to the generalship (1869-89). This general did much to raise the status of the order, and founded, in 1880, an official organ for the whole order (the "Acta Ordinis Minorum"), which contains the official decrees, decision, and ppublications and also many works on canon law and ascetic theology for the discipline of the order. During his term of office the Prussian Kulturkampf expedded the majority of the German Franciscans (1875), most of whom settled in North America, and the the French monasteries were suppressed (1880), the scattered Franciscans reassembling in Italy. The Ara Coeli monastery, the ancient seat of the general's curia, having been sized by the Italian Government to make room for the national monument of Victor Emmanuel, the general was obliged to establish a new mother-house. The new Collegio di S. Antonio near the Lateran was made the seat of the minister general; it is also an international college for the training of missionaries and lectors (i.e. professors for the schools of the order). Bernardino also founded the Collegio di S. Bonaventura at Quaracchi, near Florence, which contains the printing press of the order, and is principally intended for the publication of the writings of the great Franciscan scholars, and other learned works. On the retirement of Bernardino in 1889, Luigi Canali of Parma was elected general (1889-97) and prepared the way for the union of the four reform branches of the order at the General Chapter of Assisi in 1895. The reunion is based on the constitutions which were drawn up under the presidency of Aloysius Lauer and approved on 15 May, 1897. Leo XIII completed the union by his Bull "Felicitate quâdam" of 4 October, which removed every distinction between the branches, even the difference of name, and consequently there exists today one single, undivided Order of Friars Minor (Ordo Fratrum Minorum, O.F.M.). On the resignation of Canali as general, Leo XIII, appointed Aloysius Lauer (4 Oct., 1897) of Katholisch-Willenroth (province of Kassel, Prussia), who introduced the principles of the union gradually but firmly, as it involved many changes, especially in Italy and Austria. On his death (21 August, 1901) Aloysius was succeeded as vicar-general by David Fleming, an Irish friar attached to the English province. At the general chapter of 1903, Dionysius Schuler, of Schlatt, in Hobenzollern, who belonged, like Father Lauer, to the province of Fulda (Thuringia) and had laboured in the United States from 1875, was elected general. He also devoted himself to the complete establishment of the union, and prepared the way for the general reunion of the Spanish Franciscans with the order. At the General Chapter (or more correctly speaking the Congregatio media) of Assisi on 29 May, 1909, the order celebrated the seventh centenary of its glorious foundation.

At present (1909) the order of Friars Minor includes among its members:(1) two cardinals: José Sebastiao Neto, Patriarch of Lisbon; created in 1883 (resigned in 1907); Gregorio Aguirre y García, Archbishop of Burgos, created in 1907; (2) six archbishops, including Burgos, created in 1907; (2) six archbishops, including Monsignor Diomede Falconio, apostolic Delegate to the United States since 1907; (3) thirty-two bishops and one prelate nullius (of Santarem in Brazil); (4) three prefects Apostolic.

II. THE REFORM PARTIES

A. First Period (1226-1517)

All Franciscan reforms outside of the Observants were ordered to be suppressed by papal decree in 1506, and again in 1517, but not with complete success. The Clareni are dealt with under ANGELO CLARENO DA CINGULI; the Fraticelli and Spirituals under their respective headings. The so-called Caesarines, or followers of Caesar of Speyer (q.v.) (c. 1230-37), never existed as a separate congregation. The Amadeans wee founded by pedro Joao Mendez (also called Amadeus), a Portuguese nobleman, who laboured in Lombardy. When he died, in 1482, his congregation had twenty-eight houses but was afterwards suppressed by Pius V. The Caperolani, founded also in Lombardy by the renowned preacher Pietro Caperolo (q.v.) returned in 1480 to the ranks of the Observants. The Spiritual followers of Anthony of Castelgiovanni and Matthias of Tivoli flourished during the period 1470-1490; some of their ideas resembled those of Kaspar Waler in the province of Strasburg, which were immediately repressed by the authorities. Among the reforms in Spain were that of Pedro de Villacreces (1420) and the sect called della Capucciola of Felipe Berbegal (1430), suppressed in 1434. More important ws the reform of Juan de la Puebla (1480), whose pupil Juan de Guadalupe increased the severities of the reform. His adherents were known as Guadalupenses, Discalced, Capuciati, or Fratres de S. Evangelio, and to them belonged Juan Zumarraga, the first Bishop of Mexico (1530-48), and St. Peter of Alcántara (d. 1562 cf. below). The Neutrales were wavering Conventuals in Italy who accepted the Observance only in appearance. Founded in 1463, they were suppressed in 1467. This middle position between the Observants and Conventuals was also taken by the Matinianists, or Martinians, and the Reformati (Observants) sub ministris or de Communiate. These took as their basis the decrees of the Chapter of Assisi (1430), but wished to live under provincial ministers. They existed mostly in Germany and France, and in the latter country were called Coletani, for what reason it is not quite clear (cf. COLETTE, SAINT). To this party belonged Boniface of Ceva, a sturdy opponent of the separation of the Conventuals from the Observants.

B. Second Period (1517-1897)

Even within the pale of the Regular Observance, which constituted from 1517 the main body of the order, there existed plenty of room for various interpretations without prejudicing the rule itself, although the debatable area had been considerably restricted by the definition of its fundamental requirements and prescriptions. The Franciscan Order as such had never evaded the main principles of the rule, has never had them abrogated or been dispensed from them by the pope. The reforms since 1517, therefore, have neither been in any sense a return to the rule, since the Order of Friars Minor has never deviated from it, nor have they been a protest against a universal lax interpretation of the rule on the part of the order, as was that of the Observants against the Conventuals. The later reforms may be more truly described as repeated attempts to draw nearer to the exalted ideal of St. Francis. Frequently, it is true, these reforms dealt only with externals -- outward exercises of piety, austerities in the rule of life, etc., and these were in many cases gradually recast, mitigated, had even entirely disappeared, and by 1897 nothing was left but the name. The Capuchins are treated in a separate article; the other leading reforms within the Observance are the Discalced, the Reformati, and the Recollects. The Observants are designated by the simple addition of regularis observantiae while these reformed branches add to the general title strictoris observantiae, that is, "of the stricter Observance."

(1) The Discalced

Juan de la Puebla has been regarded as the founder of the Discalced friars Minor, since the province of the Holy Angels (de los Angelos), composed of his followers, has ever remained a province of the Observants. The Discalced owe their origin rather to Juan de Guadelupe (cf. above). He belonged indeed to the reform of Juan de la Puebla, but not for long, as he received permission from Alexander VI, in 1496, to found a hermitage with six brothers in the district of Granada, to wear the Franciscan habit in its original form, and to preach wherever he wished. These privileges were renewed in 1499, but the Spanish kings, influenced by the Observants of the province, obtained their withdrawal. They were again conferred, however, by a papal Brief in 1503, annulled in 1507, while in 1515 these friars were able to establish the custody of Estremadura. The union of 1517 again put an end to their separate existence, but in 1520 the province of St. Gabriel was formed from this custody, and as early as 1518 the houses of the Discalced friars in Portugal constituted the province de la Pietade. The dogged pertinacity of Juan Pasqual, who belonged now to the Observants and now to the Conventuals, according to the facilities afforded him to pursue the ideas of the old Egyptian hermits, withstood every attempt at repression. After much difficulty he obtained a papal Brief in 1541, authorizing him to collect companions, whereupon he founded the custody of Sts. Simon and Jude, or custody of the Paschalites (abolished in 1583), and a custody of St. Joseph. The Paschalites won a strong champion in St. Peter of Alcántara, the minister of the province of St. Gabriel, who in 1557 joined the Conventuals. As successor of Juan Pasqual and Commissary General of the Reformed Conventual Friars in Spain, Peter founded the poor and diminutive hermitage of Pedroso in Spain, and in 1559 raised the custody of St. Joseph to the dignity of a province. He forbade even sandals to be worn on the feet, prescribed complete abstinence from meat, prohibited libraries, in all of which measures he far exceeded the intentions of St. Francis of Assisi. From him is derived the name Alcantarines, which is often given to the Discalced Friars Minor. Peter died in October, 562, at a house of the Observants, with whom all the Spanish reforms had entered into union in the preceding spring. The province of St. Joseph, old peculiariities. In 1572 the members were first called in papal documents Discalceati or Excalceati, and 1578 they were named Fratres Capucini de Observantiâ. Soon other provinces followed their example and in 1604 the Discalced friars petitioned for a vicar-general, a definitor general, although many were opposed to the appointment. On Gregory's death (8 July, 1623) his concessions to the Discalced friars were reversed by Urban VIII, who, however, in 1642 recognized their province as interdependent. They were not under the juridiction of the ultramontane commissary general, and received in 1703 their own procurator general, who was afterwards chosen (alternately) for them and the Recollects. They never had general statutes, and, when such were prepared in 1761, by Joannetio, a general from their own branch, the provinces refused to accept them. The Discalced gradually established houses in numerous provinces in Spain, America, the Philippines, the East Indies and the Kingdom of Naples, which was at this period under Spanish rule. The first houses established in Naples were handed over by Sixtus V to the Reformed Conventuals in 1589. In addition to the above, a house in Tuscany and another in London must be mentioned. This branch was suppressed in 1897.

(2) The Reformati

The proceeding of the general Pisotti against the houses of the Italian Recollects led some of the friars of the Stricter Observance under the leadership of Francis of Jesi and Bernardine of Asti to approach Clement VII, who by the Bull "In suprema" (1532) authorized them to go completely barefoort and granted them a separate custody under the provincial. Both these leaders joined the Capuchins in 1535. The Reformati ate cooked food only twice in the week, scourged themselves frequently, and recited daily, in addition to the universally prescribed choir-service, the Office of the Dead, the Office of the Blessed Virgin, the Seven Penitential Psalms, etc., which far exceeded the Rule of St. Francis, and could not be maintained for long. In 1579 Gregory XIII released them entirely from the jurisdiction of the provincials and almost completely from that of the general, while in Rome they were given the renowned monastery of S. Francesco a Ripa. In the same year (1579), however, the general, Gonzaga, obtained the suspension of the decree, and the new Constitutions promelgated by Bonaventure of Caltagirone, general in 1595, ensured their affiliation with the provinces of the order. Although Clement VIII approved these statutes in 1595, it did not deter him, in 1596, from reissuing Gregory XIII's Brief of 1579, and granting the Reformati their own procurator. At the suit of two lay brothers, in 1621, Gregory XV not only confirmed this concession, but gave the Reformati their own vicar-general, general chapter, and definitors general. Fortunately for the order, these concessions were revoked in 1624 by Urban VIII, who, however, by his Bull "Injuncti nobis" of 1639 raised all the custodies of the Reformati in Italy and Poland to the dignity of provinces. In 1642 the Reformati drew up their own statutes; these were naturally composed in Italian, since Italy was always the home of this branch of the Friars Minor. In 1620 Antonio Arrigoni a Galbatio was sent by the Reformati into Bavaria, and, despite the opposition of the local Observants, succeeded in 1625 in uniting into one province of the Reformati the monasteries of the Archduchy of Bavaria, which belonged to the Upper German (Strasburg) province. The new province thenceforth belonged to the cismontane family. Arrigoni also introduced in 1628 the reform into the province of St. Leopold in the Tyrol, into Austria in 1632, and into Bohemia in 1660, and succeeded in winning these countries entirely over to his branch, Carinthia following in 1688. After many disappointments, the two Polish custodies were raised to the status of provinces of the Reformati in 1639. In the course of time, the proximity of houses of the Reformati and the Observants gave rise to unedifying contentions and the rivalry, especially in Italy. Among the heroic figures of the Reformati, St. Pacificus of San Severino calls for special mention. St. Benedict of San Fidelfo cannot be reckoned among the Reformati, as he died in a retreat of the Recollects; nor should St. Leonard of Port Maurice, who belonged rather to the so-called Riformella, introduced into the Roman Province by Bl. Bonaventure of Barcelona in 1662. The principal house of the Riformella was that of S. Bonaventura on the Palatine. St. Leonard founded two similar monasteries in Tuscany, one of which was that of Incontro near Florence. These were to serve as places of religious recollection and spiritual refreshment for priests engaged in mission-work among the people. Like the Discalced, the Reformati ceased to have a separate existence in 1897.

(3) The Recollects (Recollecti)

(a) The foundation of "recollection-houses" in France, where they were badly needed even by the Observants, was perhaps due to Spanish influence. After the bloody religious wars, which exercised an an enervating effect on the life of the cloister, one house of this description was founded at Cluys in 1570, but was soon discontinued. The general of the order, Gonzaga, undertook the establishment of such houses, but it was Franz Dozieck, a former Capuchin, who first set them on a firm basis. He was the first custos of these houses, among which that of Rabastein was the most conspicuous. Italian Reformanti had meanwhile been invited to nevers, but had to retire owing to the antipathy of the population. In 1595 Bonaventure of Caltagirone, as general of the order, published special statutes for these French houses, but with the assistance of the Government, which favoured the reforming party, the houses obtained in 1601 the appointment of a special commissary Apostolic. The members were called the Récollets -- since Réformés was the name given by the French to the Calvinists -- and also the Cordeliers, the ancient name for both the Observants and Conventuals. As regards the interpretation of the rule, there were rather important differences between the Cordelier-Observants and the Récollets, the interpretation of the latter being much stricter. From 1606 the Récollets had their own provinces, amongst them being that of St-Denis (Dionysinus) a very important province which undertook the missions in Canada and Mozambique. They were also the chaplains in the French army and won renown as preachers. The French kings, beginning with Henry IV, honoured and esteemed them, but kept them in too close dependence on the throne. Thus the notorious Commission des Réguliers (1771) allowed the Récollets to remain in France without amalgamating with the Conventuals. At this period the Récollets had 11 provinces with 2534 cloisters, but all were suppressed by the Revolution (1791).

(b) Recollection-houses are, strictly speaking, those monasteries to which friars desirous of devoting themselves to prayer and penance can withdarw to consecrate their lives to spiritual recollection. From the very inception of the roder the so-called hermitages for which St. Francis made special provision servd for this object. These always existed in the order and were naturally the first clositers of which reformers sought to obtain possession. This policy was followed by the Spanish Discalced, for example in the province of S. Antonio in Portugal (1639). They had vainly endeavoured (1581) to make themselves masters of the recollection-houses of the province of Tarragona, where their purpose was defeated by Angelo do Paz Martial Bouchier had in 1502 prescribed the institution of these houses in every province of the Spanish Observants, they were found everywhere, and from them issued the Capuchins, the Reformati, and the Recollects. The specific nature of these convents was opposed to their inclusion in any province, since even the care of souls tended to defeat their main object of seclusion and sequestration from the world. The general chapter of 1676 ordained the foundation of three or four such convents in every province -- a prescript which was repeated in 1758. The ritiri (ritiro, a house in which one lives in retirement), intorduced into the Roman Province of the Observants towards the end of the seventeenth century, were also of this class, and even today such houses are to be found among Franciscan monasteries.

(c) The Recollects of the so-called German-Belgian nation have nothing in common with any of the above-mentioned reforms. The province of St. Joseph in Flanders was the only one constituted of several recollection-houses (1629). In 1517 the old Saxon province (Saxonia), embracing over 100 monasteries, was divided into the Saxon province of the Observants (Saxonia S. Curcis) and the Saxon province of the Conventuals (Saxonia S. Johannis Baptistae). The province of Cologne (Colonia) and the Upper German or Strasburg (Argentia) province were also similary divided betwen the Observants and the Conventuals. The proposed erection of a Thuringian province (Thuringia) had to be relinquished in consequence of the outbreak of the Reformation. The Saxon province was subsequently reduced to the single monastery of Halberstadt, which contained in 1628 but one priest. The province of Cologne then took over the Saxon province, whereupon both took on a rapid and vigourous growth, and the foundation of the Thuringian Province (Fulda) became possible in 1633. In 1762 the last-named province was divided into the Upper and the Lower Thuringian provinces. In 1621 the Cologne province had adopted the statutes of the recollection-houses for all its monasteries, although it was not until 1646 that the friars adopted the name Recollecti. This example was followed by the other provinces of this nation and in 1682 this evolution in Germany, Belgium, Holland, England, and Ireland, all of which belonged to this nation, was completed without any essential changes in the Franciscan rule of life. The Recollects preserved in general very strict discipline. The charge is often unjustly brought against them that they have produced no saints, but his is true only of canonized saints. That therehave been numerous saints amongst the friars of this branch of the Franciscan Order is certain, although they have never been distinguished by canonization -- a fact due partly to the sceptical and fervourless character of the population amongst which they lived and partly to the strict discipline of the order, which forbade and repressed all that singles out for attention the individual friar.

The German-Belgian nation had a special commissary general, and from 1703 a general procurator at Rome, who represented also the Discalced. They also frequently maintained a special agent at Rome. When Benedict XIII sanctioned their national statutes in 1729, he demanded the relinquishment of the name of Recollects and certain minor peculiarities in their habit, but in 1731 the Recollects obtained from Clement XII the withdrawal of these injunctions. In consequence of the effects of the French Revolution on Germany and the Imperial Delegates' Enactment (1803), the province of Cologne was completely suppressed and the Thuringian (Fulda) reduced tot wo monasteries. The Bavarian and Saxon provinces afterwards developed rapidly, and their cloisters, in spite of the Kulturkampf, which drove most of the Prussian Franciscans to America, where rich harvest awaited their labours, bore such fruit that the Saxon province (whose cloisters are, however mostly situated in Rheinland and Westphalia), although it has founded three new provinces in North America and Brazil, and the custody of Silesia was separated from it in 1902, is still numerically the strongest province of the order, with 615 members. In 1894 the custody of Fulda was elevated to the rank of a province. The Belgian province was re-erected in 1844, after the Dutch had been already some time in existence. The separate existence of the Recollects also ceased in 1897.

Great Britain and Ireland.--The Franciscans came to England for the first time in 1224 under Blessed Agnellus of Pisa, but numbers of Englishmen had already entered the order. By their strict and and cheerful devotion to their rule, the first Franciscans became conspicuous figures in the religious life of the country, developed rapidly their order and enjoyed the highest prestige at court, among the nobility, and among the people. Without relaxing in any way the rule of poverty, they devoted themselves most zealously to study, especially at Oxford, whre the renowned Robert Grosseteste displayed towards them a fatherly interest, and where they attained the highest reputation as teachers of philosophy and theology. Their establishments in London and Oxford date from 1224. As early as 1230 the Franciscan houses of Ireland were united into a separate province. In 1272, the English province had 7 custodies, the Irish 5. In 1282, the former (Provincia Angliae) had 58 convents, the later (Provincia Hiberniae) 57. In 1316 the 7 English custodies still contained 58 convents, while in Ireland the custodies were reduced to 4 and the convents to 30. In 1340, the number of custodies and houses in ireland were 5 and 32 respectively; about 1385, 5 and 31. In 1340 and 1385, there were still 7 custodies in England; in 1340 the number of monasteries had fallen to 52, but rose to 60 by 1385. Under Elias of Cortona (1232-39) Scotland (Scotia) was separated from England and raised to the dignity of a province, but in 1239 it was again annexed to the English province. When again separated in 1329, Scotland received with its six cloisters only the title of vicaria. At the request of James I of Scotland, the first Observants from the province of Cologne came to the country about 1447, under the leadership of Cornelius von Ziriksee, and founded seven houses. About 1482 the Observants settled in England and founded their first convent at Greenwich. It was the Observants who opposed most courageously the Reformation in England, where they suffered the loss of all their provinces. The Irish province still continued officially but its houses were situated on the Continent at Louvain, Rome, Prague, etc. where fearless missionaries and eminent scholars were trained and the province was re-established in spite of the inhuman oppression of the government of England. By the decision of the general chapter of 1625, the direction of the friars was carried on from Douai, where the English Franciscans had a convent, but in 1629 it was entrusted to the general of the order. The first chapter assembled at Brussels on 1 December, 1630. John Gennings was chosen first provincial, but the then bruited proposal to re-establish the Scottish convents could not be realized. The new province in England, which, like the Irish, belonged to the Recollects, gave many glorious and intrepid martyrs to the order and the Church. In 1838, the English province contained only 9 friars, and on its dissolution in 1840, the Belgian Recollects began the foundation of new houses in England and one at Killarney in Ireland. On 15 August, 1887, the English houses were declared an independent custody, and on 12 February, 1891, a province of the order. At the present day (1909) the English province comprises in England and Scotland 11 convents with 145 friars, their 11 parishes containing some 40,000 Catholics; the Irish Province comprises 15 convents with 139 brothers.

III. STATISTICS OF THE ORDER (1260-1909)

The Order of St. Francis spread with a rapidity unexpected as it was unprecedented. At the general chapter 1221, where for the last time all members without distinction could appear, 3000 friars were present. The order still continued its rapid developement, and Elias of Cortona (1232-39) divided it into 72 provinces. On the removal of Elias the number was fixed at 32; by 1274 it had risen to 34, and it remained stable during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. To this period belongs the institution of the vicariae, which, with the exception of that of Scotland, lay in the Balkans, Russia, and the Far East. It has been often stated that about 1300 the Franciscans numbered 200,000 but his is certainly an exaggeration. Although it is not possible to arrive at the exact figure, there can scarcely have been more than 60,000 to 90,000 friars at this period. In 1282 the cloisters were about 1583 in number. In 1316 the 34 provinces contained 197 custodies and 1408 convents; in 1340, 211 custodies and 1422 convents; in 1384, 254 coustodies and 1639 convents. The Observants completely altered the conformation of the order. In 1455 they alone numbered over 20,000; in 1493, over 22,400 with more than 1200 convents. At the division of the order, in 1517, they formed the great majority of the friars, numbering 30,000 with some 1300 houses. In 1520 the Conventuals were reckoned at 20,000 to 25,000. The division brought about a complete alteration in the strength and the territories of the various provinces. In 1517 the Conventuals still retained the 34 provinces as before, but many of them were enfeebled and attenuated. The Observants, on the other hand, founded 26 new provinces in 1517, retaining in some cases the old names, in other cases dividing the old territory into several provinces.

The Reformation and the missionary activity of the Minorites in the Old, and especially in the New, World soon necesitated wide changes in the distribution, number, and extent, of the provinces. The confusion was soon increased by the inauguration of the three great reformed branches, the Discalced, the Reformati, and the Recollects, and, as these, while remaining under the one general, formed separate provinces, the number of provinces increased enormously. They were often situated in the same geographical or political districts, and were, except in the Northern lands, telescoped into one another in a most bewildering manner -- a condition aggravated in the south (especially in Italy and Spain) by an insatiate desire to found as many provinces as possible. The French Revolution (1789-95), with its ensuing wars and other disturbances, made great changes in the conformation of the order by the suppression of a number of provinces, and furthur changes were due to the secularization and suppression of monasteries which went on during the nineteenth centry. The union of 1897 still furthur reduced the number of provinces, by amalgamation all the convents of the same district into one province.

The whole order is now divided into twelve circumscriptions, each of which embraces several provinces, districts, or countries.

1. The first circumscription includes Rome, Umbria, the March of Ancona, and Bologna, and contains 4 provinces of the order, 112 convents, and 1443 friars.
2. The second embraces Tuscany and Northern italy and contains 8 provinces, 138 convents, and 2038 religious.
3. The third comprises Southern Italy and Naples (except Calabria), with 4 provinces, 93 convents, and 1063 religious.
4. The fourth includes Sicily, Calabria, and Malta, and has 7 provinces, 85 convents, and 1045 religious.
5. The fifth embraces the Tyrol, Carinthia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Albania, and the Holy Land, with 9 provinces, 282 convents and 1792 religious.
6. The sixth comprises Vienna, Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Galicia, and Bohemia, with 7 provinces, 160 convents, and 1458 friars.
7. The seventh, which in numerically the strongest, includes Germany, Holland, and Belgium, with 7 provinces, 129 convents and 2553 religious.
8. The eighth comprises France, Corsica, Great Britain, and Canada, with 7 provinces, 63 convents, and 975 religious.
9. The ninth comprises Portugal and Northern Spain with 5 provinces, 39 convents, and 1124 religious.
10. The tenth embraces Southern Spain and the Philippines, with 4 provinces, 48 houses, and 910 religious.
11. The eleventh includes Central and South America, with 12 provinces, 97 convents, and 1298 members.
12. The twelfth comprises Mexico and the United States, with 7 provinces (including the Polish commissariate at Pulaski, Wisconsin), 167 convents, and 1195 religious.

The total figures for the order are consequently (4 October, 1908), 81 provinces 1413 convents and 16,894 Franciscans. In 1905 the Franciscans numbered 16,842 and their convents 1373. For the second last decade of the nineteenth century the lowest figures are recorded, the figures announced at the general chapter of 1889 being: Observants 6228, Reformati 5733, Recollects 1621, Discalced 858 -- that is a total of 14,440 Franciscans. That only the Recollects had increased since 1862 may be seen from the figures for that year: Observants 10,200, Reformati, 9889, Recollects and Discalced together 1813 -- a total of 21,902 Minorites. The year 1768 gives the highest figures -- about 77,000 in 167 provinces. In 1762, the Observants had 87 provinces, 2330 convents, and 39,900 members; the Reformati 19,000 members with 37 provinces and 800 convents; the Recollects 11,000 members, 490 convents; 22 provinces; the Disclaced 7000 members 430 convents, 20 provinces. Total, 76,900 Minorites, 4050 cloisters, 166 provinces. In 1700 the total was 63,400 Minorites, 3880 convents, and 154 provinces; about 1680, 60,000 Minorites, 3420 convents, and 151 provinces.

IV. THE VARIOUS NAMES OF THE FRIARS MINOR

The official name, Fratres Minores (Ordo Fratrum Minorum -- O.F.M.), or Friars Minor, was variously translated into the popular speech of the Middle Ages. In England the Friars Minor were commonly known as the Grey Friars from the colour of their habit. This name corresponds to the Grabrodrene of Denmark and Scandinavia. In Germany they were usually known as the Baarfüsser (Baarfuozzen, Barvuzen, Barvoten, Barfüzzen, etc.), that is, Barefooted (wearing only sandals). In France they were usually called the Cordeliers from their rope-girdle (corde, cordelle) but were also known as the Frères Menous (from Fratres Minores). After the fifteenth century the term was applied to both the Conventuals and the Observants, but more seldom to the Récollets (Recollects). Their popular name in Italy was the Frati Minori or simply the Frati. The Observants were long known in that country as the Zoccolanti, from their foot-wear.

V. THE HABIT

The habit has been gradually changed in colour and certain other details. Its coulour, which was at first grey or a medium brown, is now a dark brown. The dress, which consists of a loose sleeved gown, is confined about the loins by a white cord, from which is hung, since the fifteenth century, the Seraphic rosary with its seven decades. A long or short under-habit of the same or a different colour and trousers are also worn. Shoes are forbidden by the rule, and may be worn only in case of necessity; for these sandals are substituted, and the feet are bre. Around the neck and over the shoulders hangs the cowl, quite separate from the habit, and under it is the shoulder-cape or mozetta, which is round in front and terminates in a point at the back. The Franciscans wear no head-dress, and have the great tonsure, so that only about three finger-breadths of hair remain, the rest of the scalp being shaved. In winter they wear about their necks between the cowl and the habit the round mantle which almost reaches the knees.

VI. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER

(See RULE OF ST. FRANCIS).

During the lifetime of St. Fracis of Assisi, everything was directed and influenced by his transcendent personality. The duration of offices was not defined, and consequently the constitution was at first juridically speaking, absolute. From 1239, that is after the experiences of the order under Elias of Cortona, the order gradually developed a monarchical constitution. The chapter of definitors for the whole order (thirteenth century), the chapter of custodies in each province, the discretus sent by the subordinate convents to the provincial chapter, etc. are institutions which have long ceased to exist. To the past also belongs the custody in the sense of a union of several convents whithin a province. Today a custody signifies a few cloisters constituting a province which has not yet been canonically erected.

The present constitution is as follows: The whole order is directed by the minister general, elected by the provincial ministers at the general chapter, whcih meets every twelve years. At first his term of office was indefinite, that is, it was for life; in 1517 it was fixed at six years; in 1571, at eight; in 1587, again at six; and finally the twelve-year period of office was settled on by Pius IX in 1862. The general resides at the Collegio S. Antonio, Via Merulana, Rome. The order is divided into provinces (that is, associations of the convents in one country or district), which prescribe and define the sphere of activity of the various friars within their sphere of jurisdiction. Several provinces togethers form a circumscription of which there are twelve in the order. Each circumscription sends one definitor general, taken in turn from each province, to Rome as one of the counsellors to the minister general. These definitors are elected for six years at the general chapter and at the congregatio intermedia (also called frequently, by an abuse of the term, a general chapter), summoned by the general six years after his election. The general chapter and the congregatio intermedia may be convened by the general in any place. The provinces of the order are governed by the provincials (ministri provinciales), who are elected every three years at the Provincial chapter and constitute the general chapter. Their term of office, like that of the general, was first undefined; from 1517 to 1547 it was three years; from 1547 to 1571, six years; from 1571 to 1587, four years; since 1587, three years. While in office, the provincial holds every year (or every and a half) the intermediate chapter (capitulum intermedium), at which the heads of all the convents of the province are chosen for a year or a year and a half. The local superiors of houses (conventus) which contain at least six religious, are called guardians (earlier wardens); otherwise they receive the title praeses or superior. The provincial has to visit his own province and watch over the observance of the rule; the general has to visit the whole order, either personally or by means of visitors specially appointed by him (vistatores generales). The individual convents consist of the Fathers (Patres), i.e. the regular priests, the clerics studying for the priesthood (fratres clerici) and the lay brothers engaged in the regular service of the house (fratres laici). Newly received candidates must first make a year's novitiate in a convent specially intended for this end. Convents, which serve certain definite purposes are called colleges (collegia). These must not, however, be confounded with the Seraphic colleges, which are to be found in modern times in most of the provinces, and are devoted to the instruction of youthful candidates in the humanities, as a preparation for the novitiate, where the students first reeive the habit of the order. No friar, convent, or even the order itself can possess any real property. (Cf. RULE OF ST. FRANCIS.)

The duties of the individual Fathers vary; according as they hold offices in the order, or are engaged as lectors (professors) of the different sciences, as preachers, in giving missions or in other occupations within or, with the permission of the superiors, without the order. The cardinal-protector, introduced in the order by St. Francis himself, exercises the office and rights of a protector at the Roman Curia, but has no power over the order itself.

VII. GENERAL SPHERE OF THE ORDER'S ACTIVITY

As a religious order in the service of the Catholic Church, and under her care and protection, the Franciscans were, according to the express wish of their founder, not only to devote themselves to their own personal sanctification, but also to make their apostolate fruitful of salvation to the people in the world. That the former of these objects has been fulfilled is clearly indicated by the number of Friars Minor who have been canonized and beatified by the Church. To these must be added the army of friars who have in the stillness of retirement led a life of virtue, known it its fullnes to God alone, a mere fraction of whose names fill such volumes at the "Martyrologium Fraciscanum" of Father Arthur do Monstier (Paris, 1638 and 1653) and the Menologium trium ordinum S.P. Fracisci of Fortunatus Hüber (Munich, 1688), containing the names of the thousands of martyrs who have laid down their lives for the Faith in Europe and elsewhere under the heathen and heretic.

Like all human institutions, the order at times fell below its first perfection. Such a multitude of men, with their human infirmities and ever-changing duties, could never perfectly translate into action the exalted ideals of St. Francis, as the more supernatural and sublime the ideas, the ruder is their collision with reality and the more allowance must made for the feebleness of man. That an aspiration after the fundamental glorious ideal of their founder has ever distinguished the order is patent from the reforms ever arising in its midst, and especially from the history of the Observance, inaugurated and established in the face of such seemingly overwhelming odds. The order was established to minister to all classes, and the Franciscans have in every age discharged the spiritual offices of confessor and preacher in the palaces of sovereigns and in the huts of the poor. Under popes, emperors, and kings they have served as ambassadors and mediators. One hundred have already been nominated to the Sacred College of Cardinals, and the number of Franciscans who have been appointed patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, is at least 3,000. The popes elected from the Observants are: Nicholas IV (1288-92); Alexander V (1409-10). Sixtus IV (1471-84) was a Conventual of the period before the division of the order. Sixtus V (1585-90) and Clement XIV (1769-74) were chosen from the Conventuals after the division. The popes have often employed the Minorites as legates and nuncios, e.g. to pave the way for and carry through the reunion of the greeks, Tatars, Armenians, Maronites, and other schismatics of the East. Many Minorites have also been appointed grand penitentiaries, that is, directors of the papal penitentiaries, and have served and still servi in Rome as Apostolic penitentiareis and as confessors to the pope himself or in the principal basilicas of the city. Thus the Observants are in charg eof the lateran Basilica in Rome. As inquisitors against heresy, the Franciscans were in the immediate service of the Apostolic See.

Observing a much stricter rule of poverty and renunciation of the world than all other orders, the Franciscans exercised during the Middle Ages a most salutary social influence over the enslaved and unprivileged classes of the population. The constant model of a practical poverty was at once consoling and elevating. The vast contributions of their monasteries touards the maintenance of the very poor cannot be indicated in rows of figures, nor can their similar contributions of today. They also exerted a wide social influence through their third order (see THIRD ORDER). They tended the lepers, especially in Germany; the constantly recurring pests and epidemics found them ever at their post, and thousands of their number sacrificed their lives in the service of the plague-stricken populace. They erected infirmaries and founding hospitals. The Observants performed most meritorious social work especially in Italy by the institution of montes pietatis (monti de Pieta), in the fiteenth century, conspicious in this work being Bl. Bernardine of Feltre (q.v.) with the renowned preacher. In England they fought with Simon de Montfort for the liberty of the people and the ideal of universal brotherhood, which St. Francis had inculcated in sermon and verse, and to thier influence may be partly traced the birth of the idea of popular government in Italy and elsewhere in Europe.

VIII. THE PREACHING ACTIVITY OF THE ORDER

St. Francis exercised great influence through his preaching, and his example has been zealously followed by his order throughout the centuries with conspicucous success, evident not only in popular applause but in the profound effects produced on the lives of the people. At first all the friars were allowed to deliver simple exhortations and, with the permission of St. Francis, dogmatic and penitential sermons. This privilege was restricted in 1221, and still further in 1223, after which year only specially trained and tested friars were allowed to preach. The Franciscans have always been eminently popular preachers, e.g. Berthold of Ratisbon (q.v.), a German who died in 1272; St. Anthony of Padua (d.1231); Gilbert of Tournai (d. about 1280); Eudes Rigauld, Archbishop of Rouen (d. 1275); Leo Valvassori of Perego, afterwards Bishop of Milan (1263); Bonaventure of Jesi (d. about 1270); Conrad of Saxony (or of Brunswick) (d. 1279); Louis, the so-called Greculus (c.1300); Haymo of Faversham (d. 1244); Ralph of Rosa (c.1250). The acme of Franciscan preaching was reached by the Observants in the fifteenth century, especially in Italy and Germany. Of the many illustrious preachers, it will be sufficient to mention St. Bernadine of Siena 9d. 1444); St. John Capistran (d. 1456); St. James of the March (d. 1476); Bl. Albert Berdini of Sarteano (d. 1450); Anthony of Rimini (d.1450); Michael of Carcano (Milan) (d.1485); Bl. Pacificus of Ceredano (d. 1482); Bl. Bernardine of Feltre (d.1494); Bernardine of Busti (d.1500); Bl. Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (d. 1495); Andrew of Faenza (d. 1507). In Germany we find: John of Minden (d.1413); Henry of Werl (d.1463); John of Werden (d.1437); author of the renowned collection of sermons "Dormi secure"; John Brugman (d.1473); Dietrich Coelde of Münster (d.1515); Johann Kannermann (d. about 1470); a preacher on the Passion; Johann Kannegieser, "the trumpet of Truth" (d. about 1500); Johann Gritasch (d. about 1410); Johann Mader; Johann Pauli (d. about 1530); whose work Schimpf und Ernst was a long favourite among the German people; Heinrich Kastner; Stephan Fridolin (d.1498). In Hungary: Pelbart of Temesvar (d. about 1490). In Poland: Bl. Simon of Lipnica (d. 1482); Bl. John of Dukla (d. 1484); Bl. Ladislaus of Gienlnow (d. 1505). In France: Oliver Maillard (d. 1502); Michel Minot (d. about 1522); Thomas surnamed Illyricus (d. 1529); Jean Tisserand (d. 1494); Etienne Brulefer (d. about 1507). The following illustrious Spanish theologians and preachers of the sixteenth century wee Friars Minor: Alphonsus de Castro (d. 1558); Didacus de Estella (d. 1575); Luis de Carvajeal (d. about 1500); John of Carthagena (d. 1617); St. Peter of Alcántara (d. 1562). Renowned Italian Franciscans were: Saluthio (d. about 1630); St. Leonard of Port Maurice (d. 1751); Bl. Leopold of Gaiches (d. 1815); Luigi Parmentieri of Casovia (d. 1855); Luigi Arrigoni (d. 1875), Archbishop of Lucca, etc. Other well-known French Franciscans were Michel Vivien (seventeenth century), Zacharie Laselve etc, and of the Germans mention may be made of Heinrich Sedulius (d. 1621), Fortunatus huever (d. 1706) and Franz Ampferle (d. 1646). Even today the Friars Minor have amongst their number many illustrious preachers, especially in Italy.

IX. INFLUENCE OF THE ORDER ON THE LITURGY AND RELIGIOUS DEVOTIONS

St. Francis prescribed for his order the abridged Breviary then reserved for the Roman Curia. As this and the Missal were revised by the general, Haymo of Faversham, at the command of Gregory IX, and these liturgical books have by degrees, since the time of Nicholas III (1277-80), been universally prescribed or adopted, the order in this alone has exercised a great influence. The Breviary of General Quiñonez (1523-28) enjoyed a much shorter vogue. To the Franciscan Order the Church is also indebted for the feast of St. Joseph (19 March) and that of the Blessed Trinity. The activity of the Franciscans in promoting devotion to the Immaculate Conception, since Scotus (d. 1308) defended this doctrine, is well known. St. Francis himself laboured earnestly to promote the adoration of Our Lord in the Blessed Eucharist, and Cherubino of Spoleto founded a sodality to accompany the Blessed Sacrament to the houses of the sick. In 1897 Leo XIII declared Paschal Baylon (d. 1592) patron of eucharistic leagues. The Christmas crib was introduced and popularized by the order to which -- especially to St. Leonard of Port Maurice (d. 1751) -- is also due the spreading of the devotion known as "the Stations of the Cross." The ringing of the Angelus morning, noon, and evening, was also inaugurated by the Franciscans, especially by St. Bonaventure and Bl. Benedict of Alrezzo (d. about 1520).

X. FRANCISCAN MISSIONS

St. Francis devoted himself to missionary labours from 1219 to 1221, and devoted in his rule a special chapter (xii) to missions. In every part of the world, the Franciscans have laboured with the greatest devotion, self-sacrifice, enthusiasm and success, even though, as the result of persecutions and wars, the result of their toil has not always been permanent. The four friars sent to Morocco in 1219 under Berard of Carbio (q.v.) were martyred in 1220. Electus soon shared their fate, and in 1227 Daniel with six companions was put to death at Ceuta. The bishops of Morocco were mostly Franciscans or Dominicans. In 1420 the Observants founded a convent at Ceuta, and here St. John of Prado died at the stake in 1632. This mission was entrusted to the province of S. Diego in 1641, and to the province of Santiago (Galicia, Spain) om 1860, after it had been constituted a prefecture Apostolic in 1859. In Oran, Libya, Tunis, Algiers, as well as throughout Egypt, Franciscans have laboured since the thirteenth century, and signalized their exertions by a glorious array of martyrs in 1288, 1345, 1358, 1370, 1373, etc. this mission was under the jurisdiction of that in the Holy Land. In 1686 Upper Egypt was separated, and became in 1697 an independent prefecture Apostolic. Lower Egypt continued its connection with the Holy Land until 1839, when both (with Aden, which was again separated in 1889) were formed into a vicariate Apostolic, in which state they still remain. In Lower Egypt there are now sixteen monasteries, controlling parishes and schools. In Upper Egypt, from which the Copts were separated in 1892, are eight monasteries with parishes connected.

In 1630 the Congregation of Propaganda sent Fathers Mark of Scalvo and Edward of Bergamo to Tripoli, and in 1643 appointed Paschal Canto, a Frenchman, Prefect Apostolic of Barbary -- an office which still exists. The activity of this mission, like the others in these countries, is not so much directed to the conversion of Mohammedans as to the support and help of the Catholic settlers. Abyssinia (Ethiopia, Habech) was first visited by John of Montecorvino (c. 1280). Later, Bl. Thomas of Florence was sent thither by Albert of Sarteano, and Sixtus IV, after the other missions had failed, sent Girolamo Tornielli. Many missionaries were put to death, and in 1687 a special prefecture was instituted for the conversion of the Copts. This was reinstituted in 1815, and in 1895 a special hierarchy was erected for the same object. In 1700 Father Krump undertook the foundation of a new mission in Ethiopia, when in 1718 three missionaries were stoned to death.

The two Genoese ships which circumnavigated Africa in 1291 had two Minorites on board. Others accompanied Vasco da Gama. In 1446 the Franciscans visited Cape Verde where Roger, a Frenchman, zealously preached the Gospel. In 1459 they reached Guinea, of which Alphonsus of Bolano was named Prefect Apostolic in 1472. They thence proceeded to the Congo, where they baptized a king. In 1500 they went to Mozambique under Alvarez of Coimbra. The French Recollects laboured here during the seventeenth century, but since 1898 the Portuguese Franciscans have had charge of the mission. At the beginning of the sixteenth century Friars Minor settled in Melinda and on the Island of Socotra near Aden. In 1245 John of Plano Carpinis (Piano di Carpine) was sent by Innocent IV to the Great Khan in Tatary and penetrated thence into Mongolia. By order of Louis IX William of Rubruck (Rubruquis) proceeded thence through Armenia and Central asia to Karakoram. The accounts of the travels of the last-mentioned historical and geopgraphical renown. In 1279 Nicholas III sent five Franciscans to China, among them John of Montercorvino, who prached on the outward journey in Armenia, Persia, and Ethiopia and on his return journey in the same countries and in India. Having converted thousands and translated the New Testament and the Psalms into Chinese, he completed in 1299 a beautiful church in Peking. In 1307 Clement V appointed him Archbishop of Cambalue and primaate of the Far East and gave him six suffragan bishops, only three of whom reached Peking (1308). (See CHINA, Vol. III, 669-70.) From 1320 to 1325 Odoric of Pordenone laboured in Persia, India, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Canton, Tibet, and China. In 1333 John XXII dispatched twenty-seven Franciscans to China, Giovanni Marignola of Florence following them in 1342. In 1370 William of Prato was sent as archbishop to Peking with twenty fellow-Minorites. The appearance of the Ming dynasty in 1368 brought about the ruin of all the missions. On 21 June, 1579, Franciscans from the Philippines penetrated to China once more, but the real founder of the new mission in China was Antonio de S. Maria (d.1669), who was sent to China in 1633, and later laboured in Cochin-China and Korea. China was also visited in 1661 by Bonaventura Ibañez (d. 1691) with eight friars. Henceforward Franciscan missions to China were constant. In 1684 came the Italian fathers under the renowned Bernardino della Chiesa (d.1739), including Basilio Rollo da Gemona (d. 1704) and Carlo Orazio da Castorano. At the beginning of the eighteenth century the Italian Franciscans began missions in the interior of China -- first in Shen-si, then in Shan-si, Shan-tung, etc.; numbers were martyred, particularly towards the close of the century. Despite the edict of persecution, Ludovico Besi began in 1839 a new mission to Shan-tung. The Franciscans continued to work persistently in most of the districts in China, where, in spite of persecution, they now hold nine of the thirty-eight vicariates. Every land, almost every province, of Europe and many divisions of America are represtented in China by one or more missionaries. Of the 222 Franciscans at present (beginning of 1909) labouring there, 77 are Italians, 27 Dutch, 25 Germans, 25 Belgians, 16 French.

The first missionaries reached the Philippines in 1577 and founded the province of St. Gregory. Their leaders were Pedro de Alfaro (1576-79), Pablo a Jesu (1580-83), and St. Peter Baptist (1586-91), the first Franciscan martyr in Japan. From the Philippines they extended their field of labour to China, Siam, Formosa, Japan, Borneo. In the Philippines their activity was tireless; they founded convents, town, and hospitals; instructed the natives in manual labour -- the planting of coffee and cocoa, the breeding of silk-worms, weaving; and planned streets, bridges, canals, aqueducts, etc. Among the best known Fraciscan architects may be included Lorenzo S. Maria (d. 1585), Macimo Rico (d. 1780), and a Joseph Balaguer (d. 1850). Here as elsewhere they studied the languages and dialects of the natives, and even to the present day continue to compile much sought after and highly prized grammars, dictionaries, etc. The occupation of the Philippines by the United States brought many alterations, but the missions are still under the province of S. Gregorio in Spain.

On 26 May, 1592, St. Peter Baptist set out from Manila for Japan with some associates, erected in 1594 a church and convent in Meaco, but on 5 February, 1597, suffered martyrdom on the cross with twenty five companions, of whom three were Jesuits. The missions of the Franciscans were thus interrupted for a time, but were repeatedly renewed from the Philippines, and as often the list of martyrs added to (e.g. in 1616, 1622, 1628, 1634, etc.). In 1907 some Franciscans again settled at Sappora on the Island of Yezo, thus forming a connecting link with the traditions of the past.

In 1680 Australia was visited by Italian Franciscans, who also preached in New Zealand, but in 1878 the missions were transferred to the Irish Franciscans. From 1859 to 1864, Patrick Bonaventure Geoghegan was Bishop of Adelaide, and was succeeded by another Franciscan, Luke Bonaventure Sheil (1864-72).

In Northern Europe, which in the thirteenth century was not yet completely converted to Christianity, the Franciscans established missions in Lithuania, whee thirty-six were butchered in 1325. The first Bishop of Lithuania was Andreas Vazilo. During the fifteenth century John, surnamed "the Small", and Blessed Ladislaus of Gielniow laboured most successfully in this district. In Prussia (now the provinces of West and East Prussia), Livonia, and Courland (where the Minorite Albert was Bishop of Marienwerder (1260-90) and founded the town of Reisenburg), as well as in Lapland, the inhabitants of which were still heathens, the Reformation put an end to the labours of the Friars Minor. Their numerous houses in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, which formed the province of Denmark (Dania, Dacia), and the provinces of England, Scotland, and to some extent those of Holland and Germany, were also overthrown. After the year 1530, the Franciscans could work in these lands only as missionaries, in which capacity they laboured there from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century and still continue to a certain extent.

A few words may here be devoted to those Friars minor who stood forth as fearless defenders of the Faith in the Northern countries during the Reformation period. The Franciscans and Dominicans supplied the greatest number and the most illustrious champions of the Church, and comparatively few yielded to temptation or persecution and deserted their order and their Faith. As in the case of the scholars, artists, missionaries, and holy men of the order, only a few names can be mentioned here. Among the hundreds of names from Great Britain may be cited: John Forest of London, burned at the stake in 1538, Godfrey Jones (d. 1598), Thomas Bullaker (d.1642), Henry Heath (d. 1643), Arthur Bell (d. 1643), Walter Colman (d. 1645) whose heroism culminated in every case in death. Similarly in Ireland we find Patrick O'Hely (d. 1578), Cornelius O'Devany (d. 1612), Boetius Egan (d. 1650), etc. Among the most distinguishd Danish defenders of the Faith is Nikolaus Herborn (Ferber), mockingly called "Stagefyr" (d. 1535); in France, Christophe de Cheffontaines (d. 1595) and François Feuradent; in Germany Thomas Murner (d. 1537), Augustin von Alfeld (d. 1532), Johannes Ferus (Wild) (d. 1554), Konrad Kling, (d. 1556), Ludolf Manann (d. 1574), Michael Hillebrand (d. about 1540), Kaspar Schatzgeyer (d. 1527), Johann Nas (d. 1590), etc. Between 1520 and 1650 more than 500 Minorites laid down their lives for the Church.

On the Black and Caspian Seas the Franciscans instituted missions about 1270. The following Franciscans laboured in Greater Armenia: James of Russano in 1233; Andrew of Perugia in 1247; Thomas of Tolentino in 1290. King Haito (Ayto) II of Lesser Armenia, and Jean de Brienne, Emperor of Constantinople, both entered the Franciscan Order. Franciscans were in Persia about 1280, and again after 1460. About this time Louis of Bologna went through Asia and Russia to rouse popular sentiment against the Turks. The Franciscans were in Further India by 1500, and toiled among the natives, the St. Thomas Christians, and the Portuguese, who made over to them the mosque of Goa seized in 1510. The order had colleges and schools in India long before the arrival of the Jesuits, who first came under the Franciscan Archbishop of Goa, Joao Albuquerque (1537-53).

Since 1219 the Franciscans have maintained a mission in the Holy Land, where, after untold labours and turmoil and at the expense of hundreds of lives, they have, especially since the fourteenth century, recovered the holy places dear to Christians. Here they built houses for the reception of pilgrims, to whom they gave protection and shelter. Friars from every country compose the so-called custody of the Holy Land, whose work in the past, interrupted by unceasing persecutions and massacres, constitutes a bloody but glorious page in the history of the order. In the territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, reinstituted in 1847, the Franciscans have 24 convents, and 15 parishes; in Syria (the Prefecture Apostolic of Aleppo), to which also belong Phoenicia and Armenia, they have 20 convents and 15 parishes, while in Lower Egypt they occupy 16 convents and 16 parishes. As all these (with numerous schools) are included in the custody of the Holy Land, the total for the mission is: 58 convents, 46 parishes, and 942 religious. the Catholics of Latin Rite in these districts number 74, 779; of Oriental Rites 893.

Under the greatest difficulties and frequently with small fruit, in consequence of the recurrent devastating wasrs and insurrections, the Franciscan missionaries have laboured in south-eastern Europe. Albania, Montenegro, bosnia, and Bulgaria received many Minorites in the thirteenth century, about which period many of the order occupied the archiepiscopal See of Antivari, and in 1340, Peregrinus of Saxony was nominated first Bishop of Bosnia. In these districts the Fraciscans worked earnestly to reconcile the schismatics with Rome. Nicholas IV, himself a Franciscan, sent missionaries of the order to Servia in 1288, and another mission followed (1354) under Friar Bartholomew, Bishop of Trau (Tragori). In 1389, Bajazet I destroyed almost all these missions, while those which were re-established in 1402 fell into the hands of the Turks, who definitely took possession of Servia in 1502. In 1464 the courageous Franciscan Angelus Zojedzodovic, obtained from Mohammed II a charter of toleration for Catholics, and progress was also made by the Franciscan missions in Bulgaria, Wallachia, Moldavia, and Podolia. In Black Russia Nikolaus Melsat of Crosna with twenty-five friars began a mission about 1370, Moldavia being visited about the same time by Anthony of Spalato (and lataer by Fabian of Bachia and James of the March), but their work was interrupted in 1460 by the Turks, who in 1476 cast 40,000 Christians from these districts into prison. Boniface IX transferred the episcopal see to Bakau, Benedict XIV to Sniatyn. At the beginning of the seventeenth century Bishop Bernardino Quirino was murdered by the Turks, and, on the death of the last bishop (Bonaventura Berardi) in 1818, the mission in Moldavia and Rumania was entrusted to the Conventuals, who still retain it.

The Franciscans were settled in Constantinople as early as the thirteenth century. In 1642 this and the subordinate missions were united into a prefecture Apostolic, from which the Prefecture of Rhodes was separated in 1897. The former now occupies seven convents, while the latter has seven churches and houses. In 1599, the convents of the Albanian mission were erected into a province, which, on 9 October, 1832, was divided into five prefectures Apostolic (Epirus, Macedonia, Servia, Pulati, and Kastrati), which are almost entirely worked by Franciscans, and were on 31 January, 1898, placed by the general, Aloysius Lauer, under a commissary general, with the authority of a provincial. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was separated from the Bosnian province in 1847 and elevated to the rank of a province in 1892, the Franciscans were the first missionaries and pastors, and these countries are still almost entirely under the spiritual guidance of the order, practically all the bishops having been Franciscans. When it was proposed in 1886 to erect a see at Antivari in Montenegro, Simon Milinovic of the Franciscan Order was designated Archbishop of Antivari and Primate of Servia. In Montenegro the Friars Minor administer ten of the eleven parishes.

According to the statistics of 4 October, 1907, the present condition of the Franciscan missions, which ae distributed over the five continents, is as follows: Total number of Friars Minor, 4689, including 2535 priests, 620 clerics, 1396 lay brothers, and 138 novices. These are assisted in their work by 12,572 Franciscan sisters, chiefly members of the Third Order of St. Francis.

XI. CULTIVATION OF THE SCIENCES

The order has always devoted itself diligently to the cultivation of sciences, and, although St. Francis is to b enumbered rather amongst the divinely enlightened than among the academically trained, he was neither a declared enemy nor a despiser of learning. to qualify themselves for the tasks assigned in ever-increasing numbers to their rapidly spreading order -- which was revered by rich and poor, was employed by popes and kings on missions of every description, and was to labour for the social betterment of every section of the community -- the Franciscans were early compelled to take advantage of every possible source of scientific culture, and, within thirty or forty years after their founder's death, they shared with the Dominicans the most prominent place in the revival of learning. This place has been retained for centuries with distinction and brillancy, especially in the domain of theology and philosophy. A list of Franciscan scholars and their works would fill volumes, while many of their writings have exercised an abiding influence in the realms of science, on the religious life of the people, and on the whole human race. Mention may be made of only a few of the eminent dogmatic and moral theologians, philosophers, writers on ethics, historians, linguists, philologists, artists, poets, musicians, geographers, etc., whom the order has produced. Formerly Franciscans lectured in many universities, e.g. parish, Oxford, Bologna, Cambridge, Cologne, Toulouse, Alcalá, Salamanca, Erfurt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Fulda. We may here mention; Alexander of Hales (d. 1245); John of Rupella (La Rochelle) (d. 1245); Adam of Marsh (Marisco) (d. 1258); John Peckman, Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1292); Cardinal Matthew of Acquasparta (d. 1302); Johannes Guallensia (John of Wales) (d. about 1300); Richard of Middleton (de Mediavilla) (d. about 1305); John Duns Scotus (d.1308), the most subtle of all Scholastics; William of Occam (d. 1349); William Vorrillon (Vorilongus) (d. 1464); Nicolas d Orbellis (d. 1465); Monaldus (d. about 1290); John of Erfurt (d. about 1310); Nicholas of Lyra (d. about 1340); the most influential exegete of the Middle Ages; David of Augsburg, mystic (d. 1272); Artesanus of Asti (c. 1317), author of the famous "Summa Casuum", called the "Artesana"; Nicholas of Osimo (d. about 1450); Pacificus of Ceredano (d. 1482), author of the "Summa Pacifica"; Baptista Trovamala de Salis (c. 1485), author of the "Baptistiniana", also called the "Rosella"; Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (d. 1495), author of the "Summa Angelica"; Dietrich (Theodore) Coelde (d. 1515), author of the "Christenespiegel"; Francesco Lichetti (d. 1520); François Feuardent (d. 1612), controversialist and exegete; Luke Wadding (d. 1658); Florence Conry (d. 1629); Anthony Hickey (Hyquaeus) (d. 1641); Pierre Marchant (d. 1661); William Herinex (d. 1678); Friedrich Stummel (d. 1682); Patritius Sporer (d. 1683); Benjamin Eubel (d. 1756); Anacletus Reiffenstuel (d. 1703); DeGubernatis (d. about 1689); Alva y Astorga (d. 1667); Jean de la Haye (d. 1661); Lorenzo Cozza (d. 1729); Amadus Hermann (d. 1700); Claude Frassen (d. 1711); François Assermet (d. 1730); Jerome of Montefortino (d. about 1740); Luca Ferraris (d. about 1750); Giovanni Antonio Bianchi (d. 1758); Sigmund Neudecker (d. 1736); Benedetto Bonelli (d. 1773); Kilian Kazenberger (d. about 1729); Vigilus Greiderer (d. 1780); Polychronius Gassmann (d. about 1830); Hereculanus Oberrauch (d. 1808); Ireneo Affò (d. 1797); Sancatntonio Cimarosto (d. 1847); Adalbert Waibel (d. 1852); Chiaro Vascotti (d. 1860); Gabriele Tonini (d. about 1870); Antonio Maria of Vicenza (d. 1884); Melchior Stanislaus of Cerreto (d. 1871); Petrus von Hötzl (d. 1902 as Bishop of Augsburg); Bernard van Loo (d. 1885); Fidelis a Fanna (d. 1881); Ignatius Jeiler (d. 1704); Marcellino da Civezza (d. 1906).

The Franciscans did not, like other orders, confine themselves to any particular Scholastic school (system). They were more attached to the teachings of Duns Scotus, perhaps, than to the School of St. Bonaventure, but there was no official compulsion in the matter.

Among the many naturalists, artists, and poets of the order may be mentioned: Thomas of Celano (d. about 1255), author of the "Dies Irae"; Giacomino of Verona (c. 1300), a precursor of Dante; St. Bonaventure (d 1274); Jacopone of Todi (d. 1306), author of the "Stabat Mater"; John Brugman (d. 1473); Gregor Martic (d. 1905); the Croatian poet. Among the musicians: Julian of Speyer (d. about 1255); Bonaventure of Brescia (fifteenth century); Pietro Canuzzi; Luigi Grossi of Viadana (d. 1627); Domenico Catenacci (d. about 1791); David Moretti (d. 1842); Petrus Singer (d. 1882). Among the naturalists may be mentioned: Roger Bacon (d. 1294); the so-called Schwarzer (Black) Berthold (c. 1300), the reputed discoverer of gunpowder; Luca Pacioli (d. about 1510); Elektus Zwinger (d. 1690); Charles Plumier (d. 1704).

For writers on the history of the order, the reader may be referred to the bibliography, since the vast majority of the books cited have been written by Franciscans. In recent times -- to some extent since 1880, but manily since 1894 -- the investigation of the history of the Friars Minor, especially during the first centuries succeeding the foundation of the order, has aroused a keen and widespread interest in the leading civilized lands and among scholars of every religious denomination and belief.

XII. SAINTS AND BEATI OF THE ORDER

The number of Friars Minor who have been canonized or beatified, is -- even if we exclude here as throughout this article, the members of the other orders of St. Francis (Conventuals, Poor Clares, Tertiaries and Capuchins) -- extraordinarily high. In this enumeration we further confine ourselves to those who are officially venerated throughout the Church, or at least throughout the whole order, with canonical sanction. These exceed one hundred in number, the names, dates of decease, and feast of the best-known being as follows.

Saints

• Francis of Assisi, d. 3 October 1226 (4 October);
• Berard of Carbio and four companions, martyred 1220 (16 January);
• Peter Baptist and twenty-fve companions, martyred at Nagasaki, Japan, 1597 (5 February);
• John Joseph of the Cross, d. 1734 (5 March);
• Benedict of San Philadelphio, d. 1589 (3 April);
• Peter Regalda, d 1456 (13 May);
• Paschal Baylon, d. 1592 (17 May);
• Bernardine of Siena, d. 1444 (20 May);
• Anthony of Padua, d. 1231 (13 June);
• Nicholas Pick, hanged by les Gueux at Gorcum (Holland) in 1572 with eighteen companions, of whom eleven were Franciscans (9 July);
• Bonaventure of Bagnorea, d. 1274 (15 July);
• Francis Solanus, the Apostle of South America, d. 1610 (24 July);
• Louis of Anjou, Bishop of Toulouse, d. 1297 (19 August);
• Pacificus of San Severino, d. 1721 (25 September);
• Daniel, and seven companions, martyred at Ceuta 1227 (13 October);
• Peter of Alcántara, d. 1562 (19 October);
• John Capistran, d. 1456 (23 October);
• Didacus (Diego), d. 1463 (12 November);
• Leonard of Port Maurice, d. 1751 (26 November);
• James of the March (Monteprandone), d. 1476 (28 November).

• Matthew of Girgenti, d. 1455 (28 January).;
• Andreas de Conti di Signa, d. 1302 (1 February);
• Odoric of Pordenone, d. 1331 (3 February);
• Anthony of Stroncone, d. 1461 (7 Feb.);
• Aegidius Maria of St. Joseph, d. 1812 (9 Feb.);
• Sebastian of Apparizio, d. 1600 (25 Feb.);
• John of Triora, martyred in China, 1816 (27 Feb.);
• Thomas of Cora, d. 1720 (28 Feb.);
• Peter of Treia, d. 1304 (14 March);
• Salvator of Orta, d. 1567 (18 March);
• John of Parma, d. 1289 (20 March);
• Benventuo, Bishop of Osimo, d. 1282 (22 March);
• Rizzerius of Mucia, d. about 1240 (26 March);
• Peregrinus of Fallerone, d. about 1245 (27 March);
• Marco Fantuzzi of Bologna, d. 1479 (31 March);
• Thomas of Tolentino, martyred in Further India, 1321, (6 April);
• Benivoglio de Bonis, d. about 1235 (2 April);
• Julain of San Augustino, d. 1606 (8 April);
• Archangelo of Calatafimo, d. 1460 (9 April);
• Carlo of Sezze, d. 1670 (10 April);
• Angelo Carletti di Chivasso, d. 1495 (12 April);
• Andreas Hibernan, d. 1602 (18 April);
• Conrad of Ascoli, d. 1290, (19 April);
• Leopold of Gaiche, d. 1815 (20 April);
• Ægidus of Assisi, d. 1262, (23 April);
• James of Bitetto, called Illyricus, d. about 1490 (27 April);
• Agnellus of Pisa, d. 1236, (8 May);
• Francis of Fabriano, d. 1322 (14 May);
• Benventuo of Recanati, d. 1289 (15 May);
• John Forest, martyred at London, 1538 (22 May);
• John of Prado, martyred in Morocco, 1631, (29 May);
• Ercolane de Plagario (Piagale), d. 1451 (29 May);
• James Stepar, d. 1411 (1 June);
• Andrew of Spello, d. 1254 (3 June);
• Pacificus of Ceredano, d. 1482 (5 June);
• Stephen of Narbonne and Raymond of Carbonna, murdered by the Albigensians, 1242 (7 June);
• Bartolomeo Pucci, d. 1330 (8 June);
• Guido of Cortona, d. about 1250 (12 June);
• Benvenuto of Gobbio, d. about 1232 (27 June);
• Simon of Lipnica, d. 1482 (18 July);
• John of Dukla (like the preceding a Pole), d. 1484 (19 July);
• John of Laverna, d. about 1325 (9 Aug.);
• Peter of Molleano (Mogliano), d. 1490 (13 Aug.);
• Sanctes of Montefabri (Urbino), d. 1385 (14 Aug);
• John of Perugia and Peter of Sassoferrato, martyred at Valencia in Spain, 1231 (3 Sept.);
• Gentilis of Matelica, martyred in Persia (5 Sept.);
• Vincent of Aquilla, d. 1504 (6 Sept.);
• Apollinaris with thirty-nine companions of the First and Third Orders, martyred in japan, 1617-32 (12 Sept);
• Bernardine of Feltre, d. 1494 (28 Sept.);
• John of Penna (Penne), d. 1271 (5 Oct.);
• Ladislaus of Gielniow, d. 1505 (22 Oct.);
• Francis of Calderola, d. 1407 (25 Oct);
• Theophilus of Corte, d. 1740 (30 Oct.);
• Liberato de Loro (Lauro), d. about 1306 (30 Oct.);
• Thomas of Florence, d. 1447;
• Rainerius of Arezzo, d. 1304 (5 Nov.);
• Bernardine of Aquila (Fossa), d. 1503 (7 Nov.);
• Gabriele Ferretti, d. 1456 (14 Nov.);
• Humilis of Bisignano, d. 1637 (5 Dec.);
• Conrad of Offida, d. 1306 (19 Dec.);
• Nicholas Factor, d. 1583 (23 Dec.).

To these might be added long lists of Blessed, who enjoy a cultus sanctioned by the Church, but whose cultus is only local, i.e. limited to their native or burial-places or to the dioceses with which they were connected. If these be included in the reckoning, the number of saints and beati in all the orders of St. Francis exceeds 300.

At the present time (1909), the postulatura of the order at Rome, whose office is to collect evidence concerning the candidates for beatification and canonization, is urging the cause of about ninety members of the First, Second, and Third orders of St. Francis. This list includes some names belonging to later and even recent times, and it will thus be seen that the Order of Friars Minor never ceases to produce members whose holiness entitles them to the highest ecclesiastical honour -- that of the altar. That the spirit of Jesus Christ, which St. Francis laboured so untermittently to revive in the world and instilled into his institutions still lives in his order to the glorification of the Divine Name, the great effciency of the Friars Minor in our day is sufficient proof.

SEE BIBLIOGRAPHY.

MICHAEL BIHL

Order of Friars Minor (Bibliography)

See ORDER OF FRIARS MINOR.

(1) GENERAL HISTORY OF THE ORDER (SOURCES, ETC.). Note.-As elsewhere throughout this article, only relative completeness is here aimed at; all special monographs concerning a particular point, question, person, etc., are omitted, and none but general works, and, of these only a selection, are cited. Chronica Fr. Jordani de Yano in Analecta Franciscana (An. Fr.), I (Quaracchi, 1885), 1-19, written in 1262, new complete ed. by BOHMER (Paris, 1908) in Collection d Etudes by SARATIER; Dialogus de Vitis Sanctorum Fratrum Minorum (c. 1245), ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1902); T. ECCLESTON (c. 1264), De Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. BREWER, Monumenta Franciscana, I (R.S., London, 1858); supplement in Monum Franc., II (R.S., London, 1882); complete id. in An. Fr. I. 217-57; abridgment in Mon. Germ. Hist., Script. (M.G. SS.), XVIII, 560-9; BERNARD OF BESSE, Liber de Laudibus S. Francisci (c. 1280), ed. in An. Fr., III (Quaracchi, 1807), 666-92; ed. FELDER (Rome, 1897); Catalgus Generalium Ministorum O. F.M. (begun in1305), ed. in An. Fr., III, 693-708; ed. HOLDER-EGGER in M.G. SS., XXXII, 653-74; EHRLE in eitschrift fur katholische Theologie, VIII (Innsbruck, 1886), 322 sqq.;p ADAM OF PARMA, ed. SALIMBENE, Chronica, written 1282-88 (Parma, 1857), ed. HOLDER-EGGER in M. G. SS., XXXII (1905-09); ANGELO CLARENO, Chronica septem Tribulationum ordinis Minorum (c. 1314-23), portion ed. by DOLLINGER, Beitrage zur Sektengesch., II (Munich, 1890); EHRLE in Archiv fur Literatur-und Kirchengesch des M. A. (A.L.K.G.,), I-III (Berlin, 1885-87); TOCCO (Rome, 1908); Catalogus Sanctorum Fratrum Minorum (c.1335), ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1903);Provinciale ordinis S. Francisci Antiguissimum (c. 1343), ed. EUBEL (Quaracchi, 1892); Chronica XXIv Generalium Ministrorum (c. 1375), ed. in An. Fr., III, 1 sqq; BARTHOLOMEW OF PISA, De Conformitate Vitae B. Francisci ad Vitam Domini jesu (c.1385), (Milan, 1510, 1513; Bologna, 1590, 1610), also in An Fr., IV and V (Quaracchi, 1906, 1910); BERNARDINE OF FOSSA, Chronica Fratrum Minorum Observantiae (c. 1480), ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1902); MARIANUS OF FLORENCE, compendium Chronicarum O.F.M. (c. 1515), ed. in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum (A.F.H.), I-III (Quaracchi, 1908-10); Speculum Vitae S. Francisci et Sorciourm eius (Paris, s.d.; Venice, 1504; metz, 1509; Antwerp, 1620; Cologen, 1623; Raab, 1732); Monumenta Ordinis Minorum (Salamanca, 1506, 1510, 1511; Barcelona, 1523; Firmamentum Trium Ordinum S. Francisci (Paris, 1512; Venice, 1513); GLASSBERGER (c. 1508), Chronica ordinis Min. (Obs.) in An. Fr., II (Quaracchi, 1887), 1 sqq.; JOHN OF KOMEROVO (1536), Tractatus Chronicae O.F.M. ed. ZEISSBERG in Archiv fur Oesterreichische Gesch., XLIX (Vienna 1872), 314-25; IDEM, Memoriale O.F.M. (am amplification of the last mentioned work) in Monumenta Poloniae Historica, V. (Lemberg, 1888), 64 sqq.; MARK OF LISBON, Chronica de la orden des los Fraklyles menored (Lisbon, 1556, etc. 1613; Salamanca, 1626, etc.). It tr. DIOLA (Brescia, 1581, etc.,; Milan, 1609; Venice, 1585, etc.; Naples, 1680, etc.); Fr. tr. (Paris, 1600, etc..); Ger. Tr. (Constance, 1604); RIDOLFI (TOSSIGNANO), ZAGA. Historia originis seraphica religionis, etc. (Rome, 1587; 2nd. ed. Venice, 1603). The principal workon the history of the order is Annales Minorum, in 8 fol. vols. (Lyons and Rome, 1625-54), of WADDING (d. 1658). To this DE MELISSANO wrote a supplement (Turin, 1710); HAROLD wrote an abstract, Epitome Annatium Ord. Min., in 2 fol. vols. (Rome, 1662). A 2nd ed. of the Annales, with the supplement of DE MELISSANO, was issued in 16 fol. vols. (Rome 1731-36), vol. XVII (Rome,1741) is an index only. Several continuations (Rome, Naples, Quaracchi, 1740-1886) bring the history up to 1622, in 25 vols. Other works are: DE GUBERNATIS, Orbis seraphicus seu historia de tribus ordinibus, etc., 5 vols.(Rome and Lons 1682-89), vol. VI (Quaracchi, 1887); DE ALVA ET ASTORGA, Monumenta antiqua seraphica (Louvain, 1664); SANNIG, Chronik der drey orden S. Francisci (3 vols., Prague, 1689, etc.); HUBER, Dreyfache Chronikh von dem dreyfachen Orden dess H. . . .Farncisci (Munich, 1686);VAN DEN HAUTE, Brevis Historai Ord, Minorum (Rome, 1777); RANIER-MARCZIC (pseudonym of MARRACCINI), Apologia per l ordine de Fratri Minori (Lucca, 1748-50), 3rd vol., by DA DECIMO, who also edited the Secoli Serfici in 1757; KRESSLINGER, Ortus et progressus Ord. Min., Monachii (Munich, 1732); DA VICENZA, Storia cronologica dei tre ordini di s. Francesco (Venice 1760-61); DA LATERA, Manuale de Frati Minori (Rome, 1776); BENOFFI, Compendio di storia Minoritica (peasro, 1829); PAPINI, Storia di S. Francesco, 2 vols.(Foligno), 1825), PANFIELD DA MAGLIANO, Storia compendiosa di S. Francesco e de Francescani, extending only to 1414 (2 vols., Rome, 1874-76), vol. I.,Ger. tr. (Munich 1883); JEILER, in Kirchenlex., s.v. Franciscanerorden; PATREM, Tableau synoptique de l Historie de l ordre de St. Francois de 1208 a 1878 (Paris, 1878), continued to 1909 (Paris, 1909); tr. into Latin under title Manuale Historiae O.F.M. . . ..latine redditum a P. Gallo haselbeck (Freiburg, 1909); PALOMES, Storia di S. Francesco, 7th ed. (2 vols.Palermo, 1879); IDEM, Dei Frati Minori e delle loro denominazioni (Palermo, 1897). The collection Analecta Franciscana sive Chronica aliaque varia documenta ad Historiam Fratrum Minorum Spectantia (vol I. Quaracchi, 1885; II, 1887; III, 1897; IV, 1906; V. 1910) contains the important chronicles etc., of the order. A special journal Archivum Franciscanum, Historicum (A.F.H.), (vol. I. 1908; II, 1909 etc.) was started in 1908 for the investigation of the history of the order. The same purpose is served-though much less comprehensively-by the Miscellanea Francescana published by FALOCI-PULIGNANI (10 vols., Foligno, 1886-1908); Etudes Franciscaines (20 vols., Paris, 1889-1908), especially from vol. XII, see also C. EUBEL, Die avignonische obedienz der Medikantenorden (Paderborn, 1900) Das Archiv fur Lit-und irchengesch, (A.L.K.G.) cf. supra; WIESHOFF, Die Stellung der Bettelorden in den deutschen frein, Reichstadten in M.A. (Leipzig, 1905); HOLZAPPEL, Die Anjange der Montes Pietatis. 1462-1515 (Munich,1903), tr. ROCCA (San Casciano, 1905); Focco, Studii francescani (2 vols., Naples, 1909); HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Congregationen der kathol. Kirche, II (2nd ed.,)Paderborn, 1907), 307-387, 424-475, where an excellent bibliography is given. The best, and the only complete, manual of the order's history is the Handbuch der Gesch, des Franciscanerordens (Freiburg and St. Louis).

(2) BULLS, GENERAL CONSTITUTIONS OF THE ORDER.- Monumenta ord. Min. Firmament, ed. WADDING in Annales O. M., each volume of which contains a rich appendix of documents; SBAHRALEA (SBARAGLIS),Bullarium Franciscanum (1219-1302), (4 vols., Roem, 1759-68), continued by EUBEL, Bull, Franc. (1303-1431), V-VII (Rome, 1898, 1902, 1904); EUBEL, Bullarii Franciscani Epitome. . .addito Supplemento (Quaracchi, 1908), a digest of all the bulls of SEARALEA (Bull, Fr., I-IV), with supplement; DA LATERA, Supplementum ad Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome, 1780), intended to remobe the conventual interuption of SBARALEA . The different constitutions of the order since 1506 have usually been issued separately; the latest is Regula et Constitutiones generales Fratrum Min. (Rome, 1897). Concerning the earliest constitutions see EHIRLE in A.L.K.G., VI. 1-138; A.F. H., II (1909), 269 sqq; LITTLE. Decrees of the General Chapters of the Friars Minor (1260-82) in English Historical Review, XIII (London, 1898), 703 sqq. The largest collection is to be found in Chronolgia historico-legalis Ordinis Fratrum Min. (4 vols., Naples. Venice and Rome, 1650-1795). The fficial decrees of the pope, the roman Congregations and General Curia since 1880 are collected in the Acta ordinis Minorum (28 vols. Quaracchi, 1882-1909).

(3) HISTORY OF THE PROVINCES OF THE ORDER.-(i) Italy:-ANT. A TERINCA, Theatrum Etrusco-Minoriticum (Florence, 1682); ANT. AB ORVIETO, Chronologis della provincia serafica rif. dell Umbria (Perugia, 1717); ANT. DA NOLA. Cronica della rif. prov. di Napoli (naples, 1718); PETRUS TOGNOLETTO, Paradiso seraficodi Sicila (Palermo, 1667); FLAM, BOTTARDI, Memorie Storiche dell Osservante Prov. di Bologna (Parma, 1760, etc); AL. A PEDELAMA, Parva Chronica prov. Seraphicae Ref. (Assisi, 1886); SPILA DA SUBIACO, Memorie Storiche della prov. romana Rif. (3 vols., Rome 1890-96); MARCUS CERVONE DA LANCIANO, Compendio de Storia de Frati Minori nei tre Abruzzi (Lanciano, 1893); PICCONIDA CANTALOPO, Cenni biografici sugli uonimi illustri della prov, ossero di Bologan I (Parma, 1894) IDEM, Atti captitolari della minoritica Provincia di bologan (1458-1905) 2 vols. (Parma, 1201-05); IDEM, Serie cronologica-biografica des Ministrs. . . . e della pro. di bologna (Parma, 1908). (ii) France:- Chronica 24 Generalium ord. Min. in A.F., III, 1 sqq; Firmamentum (cf. supra) (1512), FODERE, Narration historique et topograhiue des couvents de St. Francois. . . de Bourgogne (Lyons 1619); RAPINE, Histoire generale de l Ordre et progres des Freres Mineurs. . .appelies. . .Recollets (Paris, 1631); LEFERVRE, Histoire chronologique de la province des Recollets de Paris (Paris, 1677); ED. D ALENCON, Essai de Martyrologe de l Ordre des Freres Mineurs pendant la revolution francaise 1792-1800 (Paris, 1892); CHERANCE, Nos Martyrs (Paris, 1908); DE KERVAL, St. Francois d Assise et l ordre seraphique (Vannes, 1898); VILLERET, Les Freres Mineures de France en face du protestantisme (Vannes, 1902); DAUX, L Ordre franciscain dans le Montalbanais (Montauban, 1903); DE BARENTON, Les Franciscains en France-only 64 pp., 6th ed. (Paris, 1903); OTHON DE PAVIE, L Aquitaine Seraphique (4 vols., Vannes, Tournai, 1900-07). (iii) Spain:-ANT. HEBRERA, Chronica de la Provincia de Aragon (Zaragoza, 1703-05); AL. DE TORRES, Chronica de la Provincia (1683); FRANC. DE JESUS MARIA, Chronicas de la Provincia de S. Diego en andalucia, I (Seville, 1724); JOS. DE JESUS MARIA, Chronica de Santa provincia da Immaculada Coceicao de Portugal (sbon, 1760, etc.) (iv) Germany and North Europe:-JORDANUS A YANO; GLASSBERGER, cf. supra), Chronica anonyma in A.F., I, 279-300: BERGER, Dreufache Chronikh (cf. supra); PLACIDIUS HERZOG, Cosmographia Franciscano-Austriacae provincia S. Bernardini (1732), ed. in A.F., I 41-213; IDEM, Cosmogr, Provinicae S. Joan, a Capistrano (Cologne, 1740); FRIDRICH, Historia. . .Prov. Hungariae ord. min. SS. Salvatoris (Kosoveo, 1759):BIERNACKI, Speculum Minorum seu. . .prov. Sarmaticae et Viscariae ruaaiae (Carcow. 1688); GREIDERER, Germania Franciscana (2 vols. Innsbruck, 1777-81); KNUDSEN, En gammel Kronike on Graabroedrenes Udjagelse af deres Klostre i Danemard (Copenhagen, 1851). Ger. tr. (Munster, 1863); Fr. tr. (Brussels, 1861); it. tr. (Florence, 1862); WOKER, Gesch, der norddeutschen Franzskanermissionen der sachisschen Provinz von hl, Kreuz (Freiburg, 1880); GUGGENBICHLER, Beitrage zur Kirchengesch, des XVI, und XVII, Jahrhunderts, Bedeutung und Verdienste des Franziskanerordens im kampfe gegen den protestantismus (Bozen, 1880), onlly vol. 1 issued (2nd ed., Bozen, 1881); C. EUBEL, Gesch der oberdeutschen (Strassburger) Minortlenprovinz (Wurzburg, 1886); LEMMENS, Niedersachsische Franciskanerkloster im Mittelalter (Hildesheim, 1896); FRIESS, Gesch. der Oesterreichischen Minoritenprovinz in Archiv fur osterreichische Gesch., LXIV (Vienna, 1882) 79sqq. MINGES, Gesch der Franziskaner in Bayern (Munich, 1896) SCHLAGER, Beitrage zur Gesch, der kolnischen Franziskaner-Ordensprovinz im M.A. (Cologne, 1904); C. EUBEL, Gesch, der kolnisch. Minoriten-ordensprovinz (Cologne, 1896); BIHL, Gesch. des Franziskanerklosters Frauenberg zu Fulda (Fulda, 1907); REISCH, Gesch. des Klosters S. dorothea in Breslau (Breslau, 1908); RANT, Die Franziskaner der osterreichischen Provinz, ihr Wirken in Nierderosterreich, Steiermark und Krain (1219-1596) (Stein in Carolina 1908); GOLICHOWSKI, Materyeaty do Historyi OO. Bernardynow we Polsce (Cracow, 1899); VAN BERLO, L Ordre des Freres Mineurs en belquque, 1833-1908 (Mechlin, 1908). (v) Great Britain and Ireland.-ECCLESTON (cf. supra), English version by CUTHBERT, The Friars and how they came to England (London, 1903); LITTLE, The Grey Friars in Oxford (Oxford, 1892) Historical sketch of the Order in Englan, appendix to LEON, Lives of the Saints (cf. infra), IV (Taunton, 1887); PARKINSON. Collectanea Anglo-Minoritica, or a Collection of the antiquites of the English Franciscans, I (London,1726); ANGELUS, A S. FRANCISCO (MASON), Certamen seraphicum provinciae anglia (Douai, 1649, 2nd ed., Quaracchi, 1885); BOURCHIER, Historia de maturio Fratr, Minorum in Anglia (Ingolstadt, 1583); BREWER AND HOWLETT, Monumenta Franciscana, 2 vols. R.S. (London, 1858, 1882); THADDEUS (HERMANS), The Franciscans in England, 1600-1850) (London, 1898); MEEHAN, The Rise and Fall of the Irish Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1877); ESWARDS, The Grey Friars and their first houses in Scotland (Aberdeen, 1907).

(4) HISTORY OF THE MISSIONS.-WADDING, Annales; DE GUBERNATIS, orbis Seraphicus (cf. suppra); DA CIVEZZA, Storai Universale delle Missioni Franciscane (11 vols., Rome, Prato, Florence, 1857-95); IDEM, Saggio di bibliografia (cf. supra), containing an extensive bibliography; VICTOR-BERN. DE ROUEN, Histories universelle des Missions Franciscaines (4 vols., Paris, 1898), a French translation of portion of the monumental work of DA CIVEZZA; JUAN FRANC. DE S. ANTONIO, Cronicas de la apostolica prov. de S. Gregorio en las islas filipinas (3 vols., manila, 1738-41); American Catholic Quarterly Review, XXX (1905), 672 sqq. GROTCKEN in Historisch-polit, blatter, CXLII (Munich, 1908), 587 sqq; IDEM in pastor bonus (Trier, 1908), XX, 456 sqq. (China); IDEM, loc. cit., XX, 81 sqq. (Morocco); CASTERLANOS, Apostolado serdifico en marrueccos (Madridand Santiago, 1896); DA CIVEZZA AND DOMENICHELLI, La Palestina ed i rimanti Missioni Franciscani (Florence), 1890); GOLUBOVICH, bibliotheca, bio-bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell orisent francescano, I (Quaracchi, 1906); Archivum Franc. Historicum (Quaracchi, 1908), I sqq.: FERNANDEZ, Cosnpectus Omnium Missionum ordinis Fratrum Minorum an. 1904-1905 (Quaracchi, 1905).

(5) PARTICULAR BIBLIOGRAPHY.-MARIANUS OF FLORENCE, RIDOLFI TOSS. (cf. supra); WILLOT, Athenae Orthodoxorum Sodalitii Franciscani (liege 1598); WADDING, Scriptores Ord. Min (Rome, 1650); 2nd ed., rome, 1806 3rd ed., rome, 1906); JOHANNES A S. ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Franciscana (3 vols). Madrid, 1732-33); SBARALEA, Supplementum et Castigatio ad Scriptores ord. S. Francisci (2 vols., Rome, 1806; 2nd., 1908-9); FARKAS, Scriptores ord. Min. prov. Hungariae Reformatae nunc S. Mariae (Presburg, 1879); DA CIVEZZA, Saggio de bibliografia geografica, storica, etnografica Sanfrancescana (Prato, 1879); ANT. MAR. A VICETIA, Scriptores Provinciae Ref. s. antonii in Seraphicae, loc. cit., I, 408 sqq. LITTLE, The Grey Friars in Oxford (1892); DIRKS, Histoire litteraire. . . des Freres Mineurs de l Observance in Belgrique et dans les Pays Bas (Antwerp, 1885);MORIZZO, Scrittori kFrancescani riformati del Trentino (Trent, 1890); FELDER, Gesch. der wissenschafitichen Studien im Franziskarnerorden bis um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg, 1904) Fr. tr. (Paris, 1908); Archiv, Franc, Hist., I sqq.

(6) HAGIOGRAPHY.-Cf. DIALOGUE, CATALOGUS, BARTHOLOMEW OF PISA, MARIANUS OF FLORENCE, WADDING, etc. (cf. supra); ARTHURUS DE MONASTERIO (MONSTIER), Martyrologium Franciscanum (Paris, 1638, and 1653; abridgment, Venice, 1879) HUBER Menologium. . .ordinum. . .S. Francisci (Munich, 1698) SIGISMUND DA VENEZIA, Biografia serafica (Venice, 1846); Le palmier seraphique (12 vols., Bar-le-Duc, 1872-); LEON DE CLARY, L Aureole seraphique (4 vols. paris, 1882); tr. Lives of the Saints and blessed of the three orders of St. Francis (4 vols. Taunton, 1885-87); It. tr. L Aureola serafica (4 vols. Quaracchi, 1898-1900); SCHOUTENS, Martyrolgium Minortiso-Belgicum (Hoogstraeten, 1902); ORTOLANI, De causis Beatorum et Servorum Dei Ord. Minourm (Quaracchi, 1905).

University of Fribourg (Switzerland)

From the sixteenth century, the foundation of a Catholic university in Switzerland had often been canvassed among the Catholic cantons. The need of such an institution was with the passage of time ever more keenly felt, as the fact that higher educational institutions existed only in the Protestant cantons ensured for the Protestants a certain intellectual ascendancy. In spite of the pressing nature of the case, however, the want of the necessary means and the jealousy among the Catholic cantons combined to prevent any solution of the question being arrived at. From the very beginning, the inhabitants of Fribourg had laboured most zealously for the establishment of a university in their town. Out of their own resources, they founded in 1763 a school of law, which was continued till 1889 and then merged in the juristic faculty of the university. During the nineteenth century, the Catholic movement in Switzerland, making the Swiss "Pius-Verein" its rallying-centre, reinaugurated the agitation for a Catholic university. The Catholic Conservative Government of Fribourg finally took the matter in hand, and George Python, State Councillor for Fribourg and from 1886 Director of Public Education, who enjoyed the fullest confidence of the people, effected the foundation of the university. It was certainly a bold undertaking for a little state of only 119,000 (in 1909, 130,000) inhabitants, but the energy and political acumen of Python coupled with the unselfish liberality of the legislative council were a certain guarantee of success. The conversion of the public debt under favourable conditions in 1886 resulted in a saving of 2,500,000 francs (500,000 dollars), and on 24 December of the same year the supreme council resolved to set aside this sum as a foundation fund for the proposed university. On 4 October, 1889, a second resolution was passed, appropriating the interest on this capital to the foundation of the first faculties, which were opened in the following November, the juristic faculty (the extended school of law) with nine professors and the philosophical (for philosophy, literature, and history) with eighteen.

The town of Fribourg, seat of the university, contributed half a million francs towards the funded capital of the university, and in the autumn of 1890 the theological faculty was instituted with seven professors, In accordance with an agreement between the Government of Fribourg and Father Larocca, General of the Dominicans, this faculty was with the sanction of Leo XIII entrusted to the Dominican Order, and placed directly under the care of the Holy See. Many secular priests, however, have held chairs in the theological faculty, which has received from Rome the privilege of granting academical degrees (baccalaureate, licentiate, doctorate) in theology. The other faculties confer only the degrees of licentiate and doctorate. By the appropriation to the university of the profit on the public supply of water and electricity, and of a fixed annual sum from the newly-founded state bank, the further development of these three faculties and the establishment of the faculty of mathematical physics were made possible. The new faculty was opened in 1895 with eleven professors, and, as the institution of infirmaries has already been some years in progress, the establishment of the medical faculty-the only story now needed to crown the academical edifice-may be expected at an early date. Meanwhile, chairs of physiology and bacteriology have been instituted in connexion with the faculty of mathematical physics.

Despite many difficulties, including the crisis caused by the wanton dismissal of eight German professors in 1898, the development of the University of Fribourg has been steadily maintained. As a cantonal public institution, it stands on the same legal footing as the other universities of Switzerland. The supreme authority is vested in the Cantonal Department of Public Education (i.e the State Council), practically all the expenses being borne by the canton. The general constitution of the university is regulated by the Charter of 1 December, 1899. Leo XIII viewed its foundation with a great satisfaction to which he gave personal expression in many letters to the authorities of the Canton, to the university itself, and to the Swiss episcopate. The main sources of revenue, according to the cantonal budget for 1909, are as follows: Interest on foundation fund, 125,000 francs; yearly contributions from state bank, 80,000 frs.; profits arising from the electric and water works, 150,000 frs.; lease, 2,580 frs. To this sum of 357,580 frs. must be added 7700 frs. for the legal chairs and other endowments (especially the "Grivel" and the "Westermaier"). Many funds have been established for the assistance of students, and the institution of prizes.

In accordance with the wishes of its founder, the university has always maintained an international character, which consists not alone in the appointment of native professors to teach the history and literature of their native lands, but also in the various nationalities of the students attracted to the university. The lectures are delivered in Latin, French, and German. In the winter term of 1908-9, the teaching staff consisted of 70 lecturers from ten different lands, but especially from Switzerland, Germany, France, and Austria. Their distribution among the faculties was as follows: Theology, 13 ordinary and 2 extraordinary professors; Law, 14 ordinary and 4 extraordinary professors; Philosophy, 19 ordinary and 3 extraordinary professors; Mathematical Physics 10 ordinary and 3 extraordinary professors with 2 I4ivatdozen~en. The increase in the attendance at the university may be judged from this table of matriculated students:

Of the 568 students in the winter term of 1908-9 181 were Swiss, 90 Germans, 86 Russians (Poles and Lithuanians), 32 Bulgarians, 31 Italians, 23 from the United States, 21 from Austria-Hungary, and the remainder from eleven other lands.

The university is governed by the rector, elected each year at the general meeting of the ordinary professors. He is assisted by the senate, which consists of the rector, pro-rector, and the deans and assistant deans of the separate faculties. At the head of each faculty stands the dean, who also holds office for a single year. The professors are appointed by the Council of State on the recommendation of the members of the faculty concerned, except that in the appointment of professors of theology due attention is always paid to the requirements of ecclesiastical law and the terms of the agreement with the Dominican Order. Candidates are recognized as matriculated students on the production of a certificate which can be procured by following a certain course of academical studies in their native towns. Since 1905, women are allowed to matriculate, and, in addition to the regular students, permission may be given by the rector to other persons to attend particular lectures. As such persons numbered 119 in the winter term 1908-9, the total number of students who attended lectures during this period was 687. All the matriculated students are enrolled in a general association, called the "Akademia", and also contribute to an academic sick-fund. Many societies have been founded by the students of various lands for the promotion of social and intellectual intercourse. Thus, the "Columbia" has been instituted by the students from the United States, and publishes its own bulletin "The Columbia". There are three colleges for theological students: the Albertinum, Salesianum, and Canisianum, A special university society has been inaugurated to further the interests of the university. The university library is associated with that of the canton (which contains 140,000 volumes, 16,000 brochures, 534 manuscripts, and 350 incunabula), a new building for the accommodation of both libraries having been opened in 1908. The library expends an annual sum of 16,500 frs. in the purchase of books and journals. There are separate libraries for the different academical courses and institutes, 7650 frs. being spent annually on those in connection with the theological, legal, and philosophical faculties, and 30,000 frs. for those of the faculty of mathematical physics. The university has its own scientific publication, the "Collectanea Friburgensia", for which only contributions from professors are accepted, and in which twenty-five works have already appeared in three series. The list of the publications of the university lecturers, which is appended to the rector's annual report, gives one a good idea of the activity of the professors in other directions.

WEYRICH, The University of Freiburg in Switzerland, in The Irish Rosary (1905); Die katholische Universität zu Freiburg in der Schweiz in Historisch-Politische Blätter, CXI (1893), 569 sqq.; MOREL, L'Université de Fribourg (2d ed., Fribourg, 1895); Rapports annuels des Recteurs de l'Université de Fribourg; MAYER (=BAUMGARTNER), L'Università di Friburgo in Svizzera, tr. From the Grenzboten (Rome, 1902).

J.P. KIRSCH

Xavier Ehrenbert Fridelli

(Properly FRIEDEL.)

Jesuit missioner and cartographer, b. at Linz, Austria, 11 March, 1673; d. at Peking, 4 June, 1743. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1688 and in 1705 arrived in China. Fridelli was an important contributor to the cartographical survey of the Chinese empire, begun in 1708 and completed in 1718 (according to others, 1715). Baron Ricthofen says this is "the most comprehensive cartographic feat ever performed in so short a space of time (China, Berlin, 1877, I, 661, see 631 sq.). Together with Fathers Régis, Jartoux, and others, he designed the maps of Chi-li, the Amur district, Kahlkas (Mongolia), Sze-ch'wan, Yun-nan, Kwei-chou, and Hu-kwang (Hu-nan and Hu-pe), for which purpose the traversed the whole empire from south to north. At the time of his death Fridelli had been rector for many years of the Southern or Portuguese church (Nan-t'ang), one of the four Jesuit churches at Peking.

Five letters in N. Welt-Bott (Augsbirg, 1726, and Vienna, 1758), nos. 103, 106, 194, 589, 674; MSS report in the Vienna state library, no, 1117; Du Halde, Description de l'Empire de la Chine (the Hague, 1736), I, preface; Huonder, Deustche Jesuitenmissionäre (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 87, 186.

A. HUONDER

St. Frideswide

(FRIDESWIDA, FREDESWIDA, Fr. FRÉVISSE, Old Eng. FRIS).

Virgin, patroness of Oxford, lived from about 650 to 735. According to her legend, in its latest form, she was the child of King Didan and Safrida, and was brought up to holiness by Algiva. She refused the proffered hand of King Algar, a Mercian, and fled from him to Oxford. It was in vain that he pursued her; a mysterious blindness fell on him, and he left her in her cell. From this eventually developed the monastery, in which she died in 19 October (her principal feast), and was buried. The earliest written life now extant was not composed until four hundred years after her death, but it is generally admitted that the substance of the tradition has every appearance of verisimilitude. From the time of her translation in 1180 (commemorated 12 Feb.) from her original tomb to the great shrine of her church, her fame spread far and wide; for the university was now visited by students from all parts, who went twice a year in solemn procession to her shrine and kept her feasts with great solemnity. Cardinal Wolsey transformed her monastery into Christ Church College, King Henry made her church into Oxford cathedral, but her shrine was dismantled, and her relics, which seem to have been preserved, were relegated to some out-of-the-way corner. In the reign of Edward VI, Catherine Cathie was buried near the site of her shrine. She was a runaway nun, who had been through the form of marriage with Peter Martyr, the ex-friar. The Catholics, as was but natural, ejected her bones in the reign of Queen Mary. But after Elizabeth had reinstated Protestantism, James Calfhill, appointed Canon of Christ Church in 1561, dug up Cathie's bones once more, mixed them up (in derision of the Catholics) with the alleged remaining relics of the saint, and buried them both together amid the plaudits of his Zwinglian friends in England and Germany, where two relations of his exploit, one in Latin and one in German, were published in 1562. The Latin relation, which is conveniently reprinted in the Bollandists, is followed in the original by a number of epitaphs on the theme Hic jacet religio cum superstitione, but it does not seem that these words were incised on the tomb, though it is often said that they were. The episode strikingly illustrates the character of the continuity between the ancient faith and the reformed religion of England.

Acta SS., Oct., VIII, 533-564; MABILLON, Acta SS. Ben. (1672), III, I, 561; HOLE in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; HUBERT, Historia Bucerii, Fagii, item C. Vermiliæ (1562); PARKER, Early Oxford, 727-1100 (1885); PLUMMER, Elizabethan Oxford (1887).

J.H. POLLEN

St. Fridolin

Missionary, founder of the Monastery of Säckingen, Baden (sixth century). In accordance with a later tradition, St. Fridolin is venerated as the first Irish missionary who laboured among the Alamanni on the Upper Rhine, in the time of the Merovingians. The earliest documentary information we possess concerning him is the biography written by Balther, a Säckingen monk, at the beginning of the eleventh century (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. rer. Merov., III, 350-69). According to this life, Fridolin (or Fridold) belonged to a noble family in Ireland (Scottia inferior), and at first laboured as a missionary in his native land. Afterwards crossing to France, he came to Poitiers, where in answer to a vision, he sought out the relics of St. Hilarius, and built a church for their reception. St. Hilarius subsequently appeared to him in a dream, and commanded him to proceed to an island in the Rhine, in the territories of the Alamanni. In obedience to this summons, Fridolin repaired to the "Emperor" Clovis, who granted him possession of the still unknown island, and thence proceeded through Helion, Strasburg, and Coire, founding churches in every district in honour of St. Hilarius. Reaching at last the island of Säckingen in the Rhine, he recognized in it the island indicated in the dream, and prepared to build a church there. The inhabitants of the banks of the Rhine, however, who used the island as a pasturage for their cattle, mistook Fridolin for a cattle-robber and expelled him. On his production of Clovis's deed of gift, he was allowed to return, and to found a church and monastery on the island. He then resumed his missionary labours, founded the Scottish monastery in Constance, and extended his mission to Augsburg. He died on 6 March, and was buried at Säckingen. The writer of this legend professes to have derived his information from a biography, which he discovered in the cloister of Helera on the Moselle, also founded by Fridolin, and which, being unable to copy from want of parchment and ink, he had learned by heart.

This statement sounds very suspicious, and makes one conclude that Balther was compelled to rely on verbal tradition for the information recorded in his work. Not a single ancient author mentions Fridolin, the life has no proper historical chronological arrangement, and the enumeration of so many wonders and visions awakens distrust. Consequently, most modern historians justly reject the life as unauthentic, and as having no historical foundation for the facts recorded, while the older historians believed that it contained a germ of truth. In the early Middle Ages, there was certainly some connection between Säckingen and Poitiers, from which the former monastery received its relics, and this fact may have made the author connect Fridolin with the veneration of St. Hilarius of Poitiers, and the churches erected in his honour. The only portion of the life that can be regarded as historically tenable, is that Fridolin was an Irish missionary, who preached the Christian religion in Gaul, and founded a monastery on the island of Säckingen in the Rhine. Concerning the date of these occurrences, we have no exact information. The monastery, however, was of great importance in the ninth century, since the earliest extant document concerning it states that on 10 February, 878, Charles the Fat presented to his wife Richardis the Monasteries of Säckingen, of St. Felix and of Regula in Zurich.

Vita Fridolini, auctore Balthero monacho, in the following works: COLGAN, Acta Sanct. Hiberniæ (Louvain, 1645), I, 481 sq.; MONE, Quellensammlung der badischen Landesgeschichte (Karlsruhe, 1845), I; ed. KRUSCH in Mon. Hist., Script. Rer. Merowing., III, 351-69; Acta SS., March, I, 433-441.
POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii ævi (Berlin, 1896), II, 1322-23; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina, ed. BOLLANDISTS, I, 478; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, I (7th ed., Berlin, 1904) 155; HEFELE, Geschichte der Einführung des Christenthums in Südwestl. Deutschland (Tübingen, 1837); LÜTOLF, Die Glaubensboten der Schweiz vor St. Gallus (Lucerne, 1871), 267 sqq.; LEO, Der hl. Fridolin (Freiburg im Br., 1886); HEER, St. Fridolin, der Apostel Alemanniens (Zürich, 1889); VON KNONAU, Nochmals die Frage St. Fridolin in Anzeiger für Schweizergesch. (1889), 377-81; SCHULTE, Beiträge zur Kritik der Vita Fridolini, Jahrbuch für Schweizergesch., XVIII (1893), 134-152.

J.P. KIRSCH

Friedrich von Hausen

(HUSEN)

Medieval German poet, one of the earliest of the minnesingers; date of birth unknown; d. 6 May, 1190. His name is mentioned frequently in legal documents, for the first time in one from Mainz dated 1171. He was born in middle Rhenish territory, as is shown by his dialect, especially by his rhymes, but several towns claim the honour of being his birthplace, and the question cannot be definitely decided. In 1175 he was in Italy, and again in 1186 in the suite of Henry VI. The next year he was present when Frederick I (Barbarossa) and Philip Augustus met between Mouzon and Yvois, and in 1188 he was at Worms in the company of Count Baldwin V of Hennegau. He accompanied the Emperor Frederick, by whom he was held in high esteem, on the crusade of 1189, and met his death at the battle of Philomelium, when he fell with his horse while pursuing the enemy. His popularity was great; the whole army, we are told, mourned his death.

Friedrich von Hausen is one of the earliest of the minnesingers who are known to have imitated French models, with which he became acquainted on his travels through Burgundy and Provence. Together with Veldeke he introduced the Romance element into the minnesong. The Provençal influence is especially evident in the dactylic rhythm of his verses, which resulted from the adoption into German of a Romance ten-syllable line with four or five stresses. His rhymes are still occasionally imperfect and his songs contain more than one strophe. Hausen's poetry is not at all popular, but rather artificial in form and often abstruse in spirit. He is fond of dallying with a word. Like most of the troubadours or minnesingers he sings chiefly of love's pangs, but he never degenerates into effeminacy. Friedrich von Hausen's poems are printed in F. H. von der Hagen's "Minnesinger" (Leipzig, 1838, 4 vols.), I 212-217; a selection may also be found in K. Lachmann and M. Haupt, "Des Minnesangs Fruhling" (Leipzig, 1888), 42 sqq.; in Friedrich Pfaff, "Der Minnesang des 12 bis 14 Jahrhunderts" (Kürschners deutsche National-Litteratur, VIII, pt. I, 17-24); and in Karl Bartsch, "Deutsche Liederdichter des 12 bis 14 Jahrhunderts" (4th edition, by W. Golther, Berlin, 1901).

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Society of Friends (Quakers)

The official designation of an Anglo-American religious sect originally styling themselves "Children of Truth" and "Children of Light", but "in scorn by the world called Quakers".

The founder of the sect, George Fox, son of a well-to-do weaver, was born at Fenny Drayton in Leicestershire, England, July, 1624. His parents, upright people and strict adherents of the established religion, destined him for the Church; but since the boy, at an early period, felt a strong aversion to a "hireling ministry", he was, after receiving the bare rudiments of education, apprenticed to a shoemaker. He grew to manhood a pure and honest youth, free from the vices of his age, and "endued", says Sewel, "with a gravity and stayedness of mind seldom seen in children". In his nineteenth year, while at a fair with two friends, who were "professors" of religion, he was so shocked by a proposal they made him to join them in drinking healths, that he abandoned their company. Returning home, he spent a sleepless night, in the course of which he thought he heard a voice from heaven crying out to him: "Thou seest how young men go together into vanity, and old people into the earth; thou must forsake all, young and old, keep out of all, and be a stranger unto all." Interpreting the injunction literally, Fox left his father's house, penniless and with Bible in hand to wander about the country in search of light. His mental anguish at times bordered on despair. He sought counsel from renowned "professors"; but their advice that he should take a wife, or sing psalms, or smoke tobacco, was not calculated to solve the problems which perplexed his soul. Finding no food or consolation in the teachings of the Church of England or of the innumerable dissenting sects which flooded the land, he was thrown back upon himself and forced to accept his own imaginings as "revelations". "I fasted much", he tells us in his Journal, "walked abroad in solitary places many days, and often took my Bible and sat in hollow trees and lonesome places until night came on; and frequently in the night walked mournfully about by myself. For I was a man of sorrows in the first working of the Lord in me." This anguish of spirit continued, with intermissions, for some years; and it is not surprising that the lonely youth read into his Bible all his own idiosyncrasies and limitations.

Founding his opinions on isolated texts, he gradually evolved a system at variance with every existing form of Christianity. His central dogma was that of the "inner light", communicated directly to the individual soul by Christ "who enlightenth every man that cometh into the world". To walk in this light and obey the voice of Christ speaking within the soul was to Fox the supreme and sole duty of man. Creeds and churches, councils, rites, and sacraments were discarded as outward things. Even the Scriptures were to be interpreted by the inner light. This was surely carrying the Protestant doctrine of private judgment to its ultimate logical conclusion. Inconvenient passages of Holy Writ, such as those establishing Baptism and the Eucharist, were expounded by Fox in an allegorical sense; whilst other passages were insisted upon with a literalness before unknown. Thus, from the text "Swear not at all", he drew the illicitness of oaths, even when demanded by the magistrate. Titles of honour, salutations, and all similar things conducive to vanity, such as doffing the hat or "scraping with the leg", were to be avoided even in the presence of the king. War, even if defensive, was declared unlawful. Art, music, drama, field-sports, and dancing were rejected as unbecoming the gravity of a Christian. As for attire, he pleaded for that simplicity of dress and absence of ornament which later became the most striking peculiarity of his followers. There was no room in his system for the ordained and salaried clergy of other religions, Fox proclaiming that every man, woman or child, when moved by the Spirit, had an equal right to prophesy and give testimony for the edification of the brethren. Two conclusions, with disagreeable consequence to the early Friends, were drawn from this rejection of a "priesthood"; the first was, that they refused to pay tithes or church rates; the second, that they celebrated marriage among themselves, without calling in the services of the legally appointed minister.

Impelled by frequent "revelations", Fox began the public preaching of his novel tenets in 1647. It was not his intention to increase the religious confusion of the time by the addition of a new sect. He seems to have been persuaded that the doctrine by means of which he himself had "come up in spirit through the flaming sword into the paradise of God" would be greeted alike by Christian, Turk, and heathen. The enthusiasm and evident sincerity of the uncouth young preacher gained him numerous converts in all parts of Britain; whilst the accession of Margaret, wife of Judge Fell, afterwards of Fox himself, secured to the Friends a valuable rallying-point in the seclusion of Swarthmoor Hall, Lancashire. In an incredibly short time, a host of unordained apostles, male and female, were scouring the two hemispheres, carrying to the ends of the earth the gospel of Fox. One enthusiast hastened to Rome to enlighten the pope; a second went to the Orient to convert the sultan. The antagonistic religions dominant in England before and after the Restoration, Presbyterianism and the Established Church, made equally determined efforts, through the aid of the civil power, to crush the growing sect. From the detailed record which the Friends, in imitation of the primitive Christians, kept of the sufferings of their brethren, we gather that during the reign of Charles II, 13,562 "Quakers" were imprisoned in various parts of England, 198 were transported as slaves beyond seas, and 338 died in prison or of wounds received in violent assaults on their meetings. They fared still worse at the hands of the Puritans in Massachusetts, who spared no cruelty to rid the colony of this "cursed sect of heretics", and hanged four of them, three men and a woman, on Boston Common. What marked them out for persecution was not so much their theory of the inward light or their rejection of rites and sacraments, as their refusal to pay tithes, or take the oaths prescribed by law, or to have anything to do with the army; these offences being aggravated in the estimation of the magistrates by their obstinacy in refusing to uncover their head in court and "thouing and theeing" the judges. The suffering Friends found at last a powerful protector in the person of their most illustrious convert, William, son of admiral Penn, who defended his coreligionists in tracts and public disputes, and, through his influence with the last two Stuart kings, was frequently successful in shielding them from the violence of the mob and the severity of the magistrates. Penn furthermore secured for them a safe refuge in his great colony of Pennsylvania, the proprietorship of which he acquired from Charles II in liquidation of a loan advanced to the Crown by his father. With the accession to the throne of James II the persecution of the Friends practically ceased; and by successive Acts of Parliament passed after the Revolution of 1688, their legal disabilities were removed; their scruples about paying tithes and supporting the army were respected; and their affirmation was accepted as equivalent to an oath.

Meanwhile, Fox, in the intervals between his frequent imprisonments, had laboured to impart the semblance of an organization to the society; whilst the excesses of some of his followers compelled him to enact a code of discipline. His efforts in both these directions encountered strong opposition from many who had been taught to regard the inward light as the all-sufficient guide. However, the majority, sacrificing consistency, acquiesced; and before the death of Fox, 13 Jan., 1691, Quakerism was established on the principles which it has since substantially preserved.

Although the Friends repudiate creeds as "external" and "human", yet they, at least the early Quakers and their orthodox modern followers, admit the fundamental dogmas of Christianity as expounded in the Apostles' Creed. Rejecting as non-Scriptural the term Trinity, they confess the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the doctrine of the Redemption and salvation through Christ; and the sanctification of souls through the Holy Spirit. Their ablest apologists, as Robert Barclay and William Penn, have not been able to explain satisfactorily in what respect the "inward light" differs from the light of the individual reason; neither have they reconciled the doctrine of the supreme authority of the "inner voice" with the "external" claims of Scripture and the historic Christ. These doctrinal weaknesses were fruitful germs of dissensions in later times.

Though one of the earliest of Fox's "testimonies" was in reprobation of "steeple-houses", that is, the stately edifices with which Catholic piety had covered the soil of England, nevertheless, as his adherents grew in numbers, he was forced to gather them into congregations for purposes of worship and business. These "particular meetings" assembled on the first day of the week. They worshipped without any form of liturgy and in silence until some man, woman, or child was moved by the Spirit to "give testimony", the value of which was gauged by the common sense of the assembly. By a process of development, a form of church government came into being, which has been described as follows:

"The whole community of Friends is modelled somewhat on the Presbyterian system. Three gradations of meanings or synods -- monthly, quarterly, and yearly -- administer the affairs of the Society, including in their supervision matters both of spiritual discipline and secular policy. The monthly meetings, composed of all the congregations within a definite circuit, judge of the fitness of new candidates for membership, supply certificates to such as move to other districts, choose fit persons to be elders, to watch over the ministry, attempt the reformation or pronounce the expulsion of all such as walk disorderly, and generally seek to stimulate the members to religious duty. They also make provision for the poor of the Society, and secure the education of their children. Overseers are also appointed to assist in the promotion of these objects. At monthly meetings also marriages are sanctioned previous to their solemnization at a meeting for worship. Several monthly meetings compose a quarterly meeting, to which they forward general reports of their condition, and at which appeals are heard from their decisions. The yearly meeting holds the same relative position to the quarterly meetings that the latter do to the monthly meetings, and has the general superintendence of the Society in a particular country." (See Rowntree, Quakerism, Past and Present, p. 60.)

All the yearly meetings are supreme and independent, the only bond of union between them being the circular letters which pass between them. The annual letter of London Yearly Meeting is particularly prized. With the passing away of its founders and the cessation of persecution, Quakerism lost its missionary spirit and hardened into a narrow and exclusive sect. Instead of attracting new converts, it developed a mania for enforcing "discipline", and "disowned", that is, expelled, multitudes of its members for trifling matters in which the ordinary conscience could discern no moral offence. In consequence, they dwindled away from year to year, being gradually absorbed by other more vigorous sects, and many drifting into Unitarianism.

In the United States, where, in the beginning of the last century, they had eight prosperous yearly meetings, their progress was arrested by two schisms, known as the Separation of 1828 and the Wilburite Controversy. The disturbance of 1828 was occasioned by the preaching of Elias Hicks (1748-1830), an eloquent and extremely popular speaker, who, in his later years, put forth unsound views concerning the Person and work of Christ. He was denounced as a Unitarian; and, although the charge seemed well founded, many adhered to him, not so much from partaking his theological heresies, as to protest against the excessive power and influence claimed by the elders and overseers. After several years of wrangling, the Friends were split into two parties, the Orthodox and the Hicksite, each disowning the other, and claiming to be the original society. Ten years later the Orthodox body was again divided by the opposition of John Wilbur to the evangelistic methods of an English missionary, Joseph John Gurney. As the main body of the Orthodox held with Gurney, the Wilburite faction set up a schismatic yearly meeting. These schisms endure to the present day. There is also a microscopical sect known as "Primitive" Friends, mainly offshoots from the Wilburites who claim to have eliminated all the later additions to the faith and practice of the early founders of the society.

In the fields of education, charity, and philanthropy the Friends have occupied a place far out of proportion to their numbers. There exist in the United States many important colleges of their foundation. They are exemplary in the care of their poor and sick. Long before the other denominations, they denounced slavery and would not permit any of their members to own slaves. They did not, however, advocate the abolition of slavery by violent measures. They have also been eminently solicitous for the welfare and fair treatment of the Indians.

According to Dr. H.K. Carroll, the acknowledged authority on the subject of religious statistics (The Christian Advocate, Jan., 1907), the standing of the various branches of Friends in the United States is as follows:

• Orthodox: 1302 ministers, 830 churches, 94,507 communicants
• Hicksite: 115 ministers, 183 churches, 19,545 communicants
• Wilburite: 38 ministers, 53 churches, 4,468 communicants
• Primitive: 11 ministers, 9 churches, 232 communicants

SCHAFF, Creeds and Christendom (New York, 1884), I, III; THOMAS, ALLAN C. AND RICHARD H., History of the Society of Friends in America in American Church History Series (New York, 1894), XII--contains excellent bibliography; SMITH, JOSEPH, Descriptive Catalogue of Friends' Books (London, 1867; supplement, London, 1893); IDEM, Bibliotheca Anti-Quakeriana, A Catalogue of Books Adverse to the Society of Friends (London, 1873); JANNEY, History of the Religious Society of Friends from the Rise to the year 1828 (2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1837-50). The Works of FOX were published at London, 1694-1706; the Works of BARCLAY were edited by WILLIAM PENN (London, 1692).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Friends of God

(Ger. Gottesfreunde).

An association of pious persons, both ecclesiastical and lay, having for its object the cultivation of holiness; its name alludes no doubt to John, xv, 14, 15. The circles of the "Friends of God" appears to have had its origin in Basle between the years 1339 and 1343, and to have thence extended down the Rhine even as far as the Netherlands, the cities most prominent in its history being Basle, Strasburg, and Cologne. Seeing the disturbed state of society in the large territory, the holy associates united in their efforts to counteract the many evil influences of the time, by applying themselves zealously to the practices of the interior life, and working diligently for the conversion of sinners. From this group of ascetics, whose sole bond of union was their common desire for holiness, the great school of German mystics took its rise. They aimed at becoming saints, and at giving edification at Catholic devotion, not heterodox enthusiasm; at affective contemplation, not arid speculation. Their great leaders were two Dominicans, the eloquent preacher John Tauler (c. 1300-1361) and the contemplative writer Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1300-1365); to these must be added Henry of Nördlingen, Conrad of Kaiserheim, and the Dominicans John of Tambach (a celebrated theologian), John of Sternengassen, Dietrich of Colmar, and Nicholas of Strasburg. Among those whom they directed in the path of perfection were several communities of nuns, chiefly Dominican (e.g. in Unterlinden, Engelthal). Of these Dominicanesses, the most renowned for sanctity are the mystical writers Christina and Margaretha Ebner. Among their disciples living in the world, the following may be mentioned: Rulman Merswin, a wealthy merchant of Strasburg (1382), Henry of Rheinfefden, and the knight of Landsberg. The sermons, treatises, and letters of the "Friends of God" are remarkable for beauty of style, those of Suso constituting the best prose of the fourteenth century, the correspondence of Henry of Nördlingen and Margaretha Ebner being the earliest examples of epistolary literature in the German language, and the sermons of Tauler being masterpieces of eloquence.

As long as the association remained under the guidance of men like Suso and Tauler, masters in the spiritual life, it was preserved from blemish. Suso was the founder of the Children of Mary, and, in an age that witnessed the decadence of scholasticism or scientific theology, both friends based all their mysticism on Catholic doctrine, particularly on the solid system of St. Thomas. As Suso's "Book of the Eternal Wisdom" was composed for spiritual reading, so was his "Book of Truth" written to refute the errors and fanatic excesses of the Beghards and the Brethren of the Free Spirit. On his part, Tauler opposed the false mysticism of the Fraticelli and the schismatical tendencies of Louis of Bavaria. But the glory of the "Gottesfreunde" soon came to an end. A lay member of the association, Rulman Merswin, through either ignorance or fraud, brought the whole group of German mystics into disrepute. The doctrine of his alleged guide and master in the spiritual life — the mysterious layman of the Oberland (Der Gottesfreund vom Oberland), the "Friend of God" par excellence, to whom Merswin, in his posthumous work "Das Buch von den neun Felsen", ascribes revelations, prophecies of impending chastisements, and a divine mission to purify the Church — was diametrically opposed to that of Suso, Tauler, and the others. Denifle has proved conclusively that Merswin's great unknown is a myth, but, as the "Great Friend of God" had previously been regarded as the reformer of the hierarchy and a precursor of Luther, the recluse of the Oberland (Alsace) was much lauded and often quoted by those Protestant writers who asserted that true German mysticism was incompatible with Roman supremacy, scholastic theology, etc. After Rulman Merswin's death, Nicholas of Basle became the leader of the pseudo-Friends of God, but was eventually condemned as a Beghard and burned at Vienna in 1409. Another prominent member of this sect, his disciple Martin of Mainz, had suffered a like punishment sixteen years before in Cologne, for submitting unreservedly to a layman and maintaining several heretical propositions. From the beginning of the fifteenth century, the "Friends of God", whether orthodox or heterodox, disappear from the pages of history.

(See JOHN TAULER; BL. HENRY SUSO; MYSTICISM.)

Hergenrother-Kirsch Kirchengesch. (Freiburg, 1904), 11,790 sqq.; DENIFLE in Zeitschrift f. deutsches Altertum (1880-1881); Idem, Das Buch von der geistlichen Armuth (Munich, 1887); EHRlE in Stimment aus Maria-Laach (1881), XXI, 38, 252; Greith, Die detsche Mystik im Predigerorden (Freiburg, 1861); Dos Buch von den neun Felsen (Leipzig, 1859); JUNDT, Les amis de Dieu au XIV, siecle (Paris, 1879); Idem, Rulman Merswin et l'ami de Dieu de l'Oberland (Paris, 1890); BEVAN, Three Friends of God: Records from the lives of John Tauler, Nicholas of Basle, and Henry of Suso (London, 1887); Boringher, Die deutschen ?n. Mystiker (2nd ed., Zurich, 1877); Tauler, Predigten (Leipzig, 1498, and Cologne, 1543); Surius, Latin paraphrase of same(Cologne, 1548); Die deutschen Schriften des seligen Heinrich Seuse, ed. Denifle (Munich, 1880. On Rulman Merswin, in particular, see Strauch in the Realencyk-opadie ur prot. Theol., lopadia fur prot. Theol., XV11, 203; Bihlmeyer in Buchberger's Kirchl. Handlex, s.v. Gottesfreunde and Merswin.

REGINALD WALSH

Abbey of Frigolet

The monastery of St. Michael was founded, about 960, at Frigolet, by Conrad the Pacific, King of Arles, on one of the numerous hills which lie between Tarascon and Avignon, France. Successively occupied by the Benedictines of Montmajour, the Augustinians, the Hieronymites, and finally by the Reformed Augustinians, it was, together with all the monasteries in France, suppressed and sold by the French Republic. From that time it changed hands frequently, and was acquired, at length, by Rev. Edmund Boulbon, who purchased it from Rev. T. Delestrac. Edmund Boulbon, b. 14 January, 1817, entered the Abbey of Our Lady of La Trappe at Briquebec, in 1850. Of a robust faith, and burning with zeal for souls, he wished to lead a more active life. Acting on the advice of his superiors, he left the Trappists and undertook the restoration, in France, of the Order of St. Norbert, the constitution of which seemed to be better adapted to his active disposition. On 6 June, feast of St. Norbert, he received the white habit from the hands of Mgr de Gassignies, Bishop of Soissons, at Prémontré. Pius IX approved the project in an audience which he granted to Father Edmund, 4 December, 1856. With the consent of Mgr de Chalandon, Archbishop of Aix, Father Edmund took possession of Frigolet, and, having admitted several novices, he commenced the community life there. In honour of Our Lady Conceived without Sin he erected a magnificent church, which was solemnly consecrated on 6 Oct., 1866. The monastery was canonically erected as a priory on 28 August, 1868; and as an abbey in Sept., 1869, the Right Rev. Edmund Boulbon being its first abbot. On 8 Nov., 1880, the abbey of Frigolet was seized and the religious expelled. Eventually, however, they were permitted to return. Abbot Boulbon was spared the miseries of a second expulsion, for he died 2 March, 1883.

His successor, Paulinus Boniface, named abbot on 10 June, 1883, undid by his bad administration the good work so nobly begun by Abbot Boulbon; but after a canonical visitation by Mgr Gouthe-Soulard, Archbishop of Aix, he was deposed, and the direction of the abbey entrusted to the Rev. Denis Bonnefoy, a prudent and saintly religious. Up to this time, the Abbey of Frigolet, with the priories founded by it, had formed as it were a separate congregation with an organization of its own, having no connexion with the other abbeys or the general chapter of the order. This state of affairs was remedied by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, dated 17 Sept., 1898; and the congregation of Frigolet was incorporated with the order. Unfortunately, the Right Rev. Denis Bonnefoy, who was made abbot on 21 March, 1899, died on 20 Sept. of the same year. The religious of Frigolet chose for their abbot Godfrey Madelaine, then prior of the Abbey of Mondaye, Calvados, France, the distinguished author of "L'histoire de S. Norbert" and other books. Meanwhile the French Republic had framed new laws against all religious institutions, and on 5 April, 1903, the religious, expelled from their abbey, took refuge in Belgium. There, having bought what was left of the former Norbertine Abbey of Leffe near Dinant, they restored it; and continued in the conventual life, in the hope that some day the fathers might be permitted to return to France. The Abbey of Frigolet had founded the priories of Conques and Etoile in France, and of Storrington and Bedworth in England. It has also sent missionaries to Madagascar.

F.M. GEUDENS

Fringes (in Scripture)

This word is used to denote a special kind of trimming, consisting of loose threads of wool, silk, etc., or strips of other suitable material, along the edge of a piece of cloth. The English Bible uses it to designate a particular appendage of the Jewish costume. In the Mosaic legislation which is embodied in the Pentateuch, mention is made of a peculiar ordinance. "The Lord also said to Moses: Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt tell them to make to themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue: that when they shall see them, they may remember all the commandments of the Lord" (Num., xv, 37-39). "Thou shalt make strings [A.V. and R.V.: fringes] in the hem at the four corners of thy cloak" (Deut., xxii, 12). The description contained in these two passages is anything but clear, at least in the English Bibles; but it may be supplemented by a close reading of the original text, a knowledge of Eastern customs, and the details to be found in the rabbinical literature.

The word "fringes" is here an inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew; "strings" is slightly more exact. The Hebrew word gedîlîm means literally "twisted cords"; çîçîth would be best translated by "tassel". It is indeed an ornament of this description, fastened to the four corners of the upper garment, which is the object of the above regulations. This upper garment, the "cloak" of Deut., xxii, 12, seems to have been a large square piece of cloth, resembling the ’aba of the modern bedouin, and worn like the pallium or ‘imátion of the Greeks, the four corners sometimes hanging in front (‘epíblema), and sometimes one of the corners cast over the left shoulder (períblema). It was very likely the tassel of the corner thus thrown over Our Lord's shoulder that the woman with the issue of blood touched ("behind him"), in the circumstance recorded in Matt., ix, 20, and Luke, viii, 44. We should perhaps go back to a very ancient custom, the significance of which was lost sight of, to account for the wearing of these ornaments. At any rate, a new meaning was attached to them by the lawgiver of Israel.

Of these "fringes", or tassels, nothing more is said in the O. T., than that they should contain "ribands of blue"; more exactly, "a cord, or thread of purple". But the rabbinical literature contains most minute prescriptions with regard to these ornaments. Owing to the difficulty of procuring the purple dye, the custom prevailed of using only white threads of wool. They should be four in number, one being considerably longer than the others, spun expressly for the purpose, passed through an eyelet at the corner of the cloak, twisted a certain number of times, and tied by five knots. According to Deut., the çîçîth were intended to remind the people of the commandments of the Law. We may easily understand, therefore, why the Pharisees were wont to "enlarge their fringes" (Matt., xxiii, 5). This connexion led people to attach to the çîçîth and its various parts mystic significations, and to the statement that the wearing of it is the most important precept of the Law; nay more, is of equal merit with the observance of the whole Law.

The practice of wearing the çîçîth is still scrupulously followed by the Jews. The tassels are a part of the large tálîth, or prayer-shawl, used universally during religious services: this garment is worn in such a way that the çîçîth are visible in front. Pious Jews, moreover, devised, since the Dispersion, an article of clothing, the small tálîth, that would enable them to observe the Law at all times. This tálîth is similar in shape to a large scapular, with the tassels fastened to the four corners, and is worn as an undergarment. Men only are to wear the tálîth and the çîçîth.

      Talmud of Jerusalem, Treat. Çîçîth (Venice, 1522-1523); French transl. by Schwab, Paris, 1871-1890; Maimonides, Yad Ha-hazakah (1st ed. wtihout place or date; 3d ed., Constantinople, 1509); Buxtorf, Lexicon Talmudicum, s. v. Cîcîth (Basle, 1639; Leipzig, 1869-1875); Idem, Synagoga Judaica, 160-170 (Basle, 1603); Hiller, Dissertatio de vestibus fimbriatis Hebræorum in Ugolini, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum, XXI (Venice, 1744-1769).

Charles L. Souvay.

Samuel Fritz

A Jesuit missionary of the eighteenth century noted for his exploration of the Amazon River and its basin; b. at Trautenau, Bohemia, in 1654; d. 20 March, 1728. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1673. In 1684 he was sent to Quito as a missionary. For forty-two years Fritz acted in this capacity among the Indians of the Upper Marañon. He succeeded in converting among others the powerful tribe of Omaguas (Omayas) and in concentrating into civilized settlements the savages of forty different localities, in the country between the Rivers Napo and Negro. An adept in technical arts and handicraft, he also was extraordinary linguistic abilities, supplemented by the rare gift of knowing intuitively how to treat the Indians. These qualifications enabled him to accomplish prodigious work among them, and merited for him the respect not only of the savages but also of the Spanish Government, to which he rendered valuable service in its boundary dispute with the Portuguese. At the instance of the Real Audiencia of Quito he began (1687) the cartographical delineation of the disputed missionary territory on the Upper Marañon between Peru and Quito. In 1689 he undertook, in a primitive pirogue, a daring expedition down the Amazon to Pará, where he was captured and imprisoned for two years on the suspicion of being a Spanish spy. Although imperfectly equipped with the necessary instruments, he completed a comparatively accurate chart of the river's course. This was the first approximately correct chart of the Marañon territory. He was also the first to follow the Tunguragua instead of the Gran Pará (Ucayali) and prove it the real source of the Marañon.

A Protestant, Wappaeus, writes of him in his "Handbuch der Geographie und Statistik" (Leipzig, 1863-70, I, pt. III, 595) as follows: "The great respect justly shown at that time by European scientists for the geographical work of the Jesuits led to the admission into their ranks of Father Fritz by acclamation." In 1707 this map was printed at Quito and extensively copied, e.g. in the "Lettres Edifiantes" (Paris, 1781), VIII, 284, and the "N. Welt-Bott" (Augsburg, 1726, I), also in Condamine, "Relation abrégée d'un voyage fait dans l'intérieur de l'Amérique Mérid." (Paris, 1745), which contains the revised chart of Father Fritz for comparative study. The chart was reprinted in Madrid, in 1892, on the occasion of the fourth centenary of the discovery of America. There was another reprint in the "Recueil de voyage et de documents pour servir a l'hist. de la géogr.", ed. by Schéfer and Cordier (Paris, 1893). Three of his letters are incorporated in the "N. Welt-Bott" (Augsburg, 1726), III, nos. 24, 25; according to Condamine an original report of his travels is to be found in the archives of the Jesuit college at Quito.

PLATZWEG, Lebensbilder deutscher Jesuiten (Paderborn, 1882), 137; HUONDER, Deutsche Jesuiten Missionäre im 17. u. 18. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1889); BORDA, Hist. de la C. de J. en la Nueva Granada (Poissy, 1872), I, 72; CHANTRE Y HERRERA, Hist. de las Misiones de la C. d. J. en el Marañon Español (Madrid, 1901), VI, ix, 296 sq.; WOLF, Geogr. y Geologia del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1892), 566; ULLOA, Viage á la América Merid. (Madrid, 1748), I, vi, c. 5. For the linguistic abilities of FRITZ, see ADELUNG, Mythrid. (Berlin, 1806), III, ii, 611.

A. HUONDER

Jean Froissart

French historian and poet, b. at Valenciennes, about 1337, d. at Chimay 1337 early in the fifteenth century. The exact dates of his birth and death are unknown, as well as the family from which he sprang. In 1361, after receiving ecclesiastical tonsure, he went to England to present to Queen Philippa of Hainault an account in verse of the battle of Poitiers. This marked the beginning of the wandering life which led him through the whole of Europe and made him the guest of the chief personages of the end of the fourteenth century. His sojourn in England lasted till 1367. Queen Philippa received him well and inspired him with the idea of writing his chronicles. He travelled through England and visited Scotland where he met David Bruce. In 1367 he accompanied the Black Prince to Bordeaux, returned to London, and in 1368 accompanied the Duke of Clarence to Milan where the duke was to wed the daughter of Galeazzo Visconti. From Italy Froissart returned to Valenciennes where he learned of the death of Queen Philippa in 1369. He was then successively under the protection of Duke Wenceslaus of Brabant (1369-1381), and Comte Guy de Blois, seigneur of the parish of Lestines-au-Mont and a canonicate at Chimay (1384). Froissart accompanied Comte Guy into Flanders and to Blois. Then, to secure information concerning the Spanish wars, he visited the court of Gaston Phebus, Comte de Foix, and quitted it in 1389 in the company of Jeanne de Boulogne, the affianced bride of the Duc de Berry. In 1390 and 1391 he wrote his history at Valenciennes. He was at Paris in 1392, whence he went again to London, where he offered his poems to Richard II. Having quarrelled with Guy de Blois, he found a new protector in Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Little is known of his latter years, which were possibly passed at Chimay.

Froissart composed many poems of love and adventure, such as "l'Epinette Amoureuse", in which he relates the story of his own life, and "Méliador", a poem in imitation of the Round Table cycle, etc. His chief work is the "Chroniques de France, d'Angleterre, d'Ecosse, de Bretagne, de Gascogne, de Flandre et lieux circonvoisins", an account of European wars from 1328 till 1400. In the numerous manuscripts of the "Chronicles" three recensions of the first book are recognizable. The first, written between 1369 and 1379 brings the narrative to 1378 (the beginning is borrowed from the "Chronicle" of Jean le Bel, a canon of Liege). The tone of this recension is favourable to the English. The second recession, represented by the Amiens and Valenciennes MSS., was written under the inspiration of Guy de Blois and is favourable to the French. The third recension (Vatican MS.), written after 1400, is frankly hostile to England, but the MS. stops with the year 1340. The second, third, and fourth books of the "Chronicles" were written between 1387 and 1400.

The "Chronicles" contain many errors and are very partial, but despite these faults no work conveys so lively an impression of the men and things of the fourteenth century as this history of Froissart. His graceful and naive style and the picturesque turn which he gives to his recollections make him the king of chroniclers. The "Chronicles" were much copied; one of the most beautiful manuscripts of Froissart is at Breslau, copied in 1469 by Aubert de Hesdin, and admirably illustrated with miniatures (S. Reinach, Gazette des Beaux Arts, May, 1905). Among the modern editions are those of: Buchon, "Panthéon littéraire", 3 vols. (Paris, 1835 and 1846), defective in the first book; Kervyn de Lettenhove, 29 vols. (Brussels, 1867-1877), gives the various recensions of each chapter; Siméon Luce began to publish in 1869 the edition of the Société de l'Histoire do France, 8 vols. (Paris, 1869-1888); G. Raynaud, commissioned to continue this undertaking, published volumes IX to XI, which contain part of Book 11 (Paris, 1897-1899). The poem "Méliador" was edited by A. Longnon for the Société des Anciens Textes Français (Paris, 1895).

KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Froissart, etude litteraire sur le XIV siecle, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1857); DARMESTETER, Froissart in Coll. des Grands ecrivains francais (Paris, 1894), tr. POYNTER (London, 189;5); MOLINIER, Les sources de l'Histoire de France, 8. Les Valois, IV, 5-18 (Paris, 1904); SAINTSBURY, History of French Literature; Johnes, Memoirs of the Life of Froissart, etc. (London, 1801); see Chevalier, Bio-bibl., s.v. for an extensive bibliography.

LOUIS BRÉHIER

Eugène Fromentin

French writer and artist; b. at La Rochelle, 24 October, 1820; d. at Saint-Maurice, near La Rochelle, 26 August, 1876. His father, a distinguished physician and art connoisseur, intended him for the bar. After a brilliant course of studies, the young man came to Paris, in November, 1839, to follow the lectures in law. In 1843 he became associated with Maître Dénormandie, an attorney-at-law. But his literary and artistic inclinations gradually rendered his profession insupportable. Marilhat's exhibition of 1844 definitely decided him to devote himself to painting. He became a pupil of Cabat, who was, with Flers, Huet, Corot, and Rousseau, one of the restorers of modern landscape painting. A short journey to Algeria, in 1846, showed him more clearly the line he was to follow. In 1848 and 1852 he again visited that country, to garner material for his work. He exhibited at the Salon in 1847. In 1850 he sent in eleven paintings, and was awarded a second-class medal. The only other notable events in his life were a voyage to Egypt, in the autumn of 1869, in the company of Napoleon III, at the time of the opening of the Suez Canal; and a short stay of some weeks in Holland, in July, 1875, where he obtained matter for his book, "Les Maîtres d'autrefois". He was made chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1859, and officer in 1869. He married in 1851.

In his lifetime, it was as a painter rather than as writer that he became renowned. Orientalism was then in vogue. It suited the romantic tastes of the age, and satisfied the general curiosity for exotic customs. Great painters like Decamps, Delacroix, and Marilhat, had already made a specialty of it. Moreover, all thoughts were turned towards Algeria, a new, mysterious country, only half-conquered, which had just been the scene of a long colonial war. The public were never weary of hearing about it. Since the land has become so well known, this interest has ceased; and it must be admitted that Fromentin's reputation has suffered in consequence. Such is the penalty of a success partly based on the informative and teaching qualities of the painter's art. The actuality has ceased to interest us; and the glory of the artist who depended on it must necessarily fade. But Fromentin is far from deserving the obscurity into which he is now relegated. His work, as a painter, is that of a charming artist, the work of a landscapist and a painter of customs, who had the secret ambition of becoming an historical painter, and who, wisely enough, selected in the modern world subjects and plan best accommodated to his ambition and his ability. Fromentin's art, either by the nature of his paintings or the dimensions, rarely surpasses the "genre" properly so called; and yet there is something naturally impressive in the beauty of the Arab life and manners, in that nomadic, feudal, warlike existence, the majestic simplicity of the desert spaces, and the immutable tranquillity of the Orient. Finally, one cannot fail to recognize the distinctive mark of Fromentin's art. He is not a faultless painter, but he is one of exquisite delicacy. After 1860, especially, under the influence of Corot, he becomes one of the cleverest modern "harmonists". His blue slate-coloured Algerian pictures, with their remarkable greyish tints, have not been excelled. As a painter of the Arab horse, in the "Curée" of the Louvre, he has no rival. Sometimes he is eloquent, as in the "Simoun", the "Soif", or the famous "Rue d'El Aghouat". But the works that show his art its best are those that depict both customs and scenery, as the "Passage du Gué" (New York), the "Chasse au Faucon" (Chantilly): in these he is a kind of modern Wouverman, more elegant and poetic than the former. And one may anticipate the day when, Africa in its turn having been subjected to civilization, industry, and uniformity, these pictures will be the sole witness of its ancient customs, and will then assume their historic signification.

It is, however, as a writer that Fromentin is rising more and more to fame. His work is very varied. As a result of his travels, he published, under the titles of: "Un été dans le Sahara" (Paris, 1856); and "Une année dans le Sahel" (Paris, 1858), the souvenirs of his two last sojourns in Algeria. In these he inaugurates a new method of description, much less literary than Chateaubriand's, less "technical" than Gautier's, a method which, in French tradition, marks the transition from Bernardin de Saint-Pierre to Loti. "Dominique" appeared a year later (Paris, 1862). This autobiography and transparent history of a pure youthful love is, together with "Adolphe" and the "Princesse de Clèves", one of the masterpieces of the French "roman d'analyse". But the work that will transmit Fromentin's name to posterity is his "Maîtres d'autrefois" (Paris, 1876). This book is composed from the notes made during a journey through Belgium and Holland to study the old painters; or rather, this journey was the occasion of the work. For the author, in connexion with the paintings he saw, discusses, in passing, the questions of æsthetic moment which he raises. It may be said that this book really originated artistic criticism. As a critic Diderot is purely literary, Hegel metaphysical, Ruskin religious, moral, or apocalyptic, Taine historical, or philosophical; but Fromentin made criticism strictly "artistic", that is to say, he seeks the secret of the significance, value, and beauty of a picture solely in an examination of the work, its style, and its methods of execution. It is through the painting thus understood and examined that he succeeds in determining the personality and the moral characteristics of the author. Here Fromentin is a great creator and a great writer, who really invents everything: methods, systems, and terminology. Some of his descriptions of paintings are the last word in the art of writing. Certain of his analyses, such as those of Rubens and Rembrandt, are definitive, and fix, forever, both the rules of the style or class, and the portraits of these great men. If to understand is to equal, it is by such pages that this distinguished writer, who has won a place among the first prose-writers of the last century, has really added something to the art of painting — that is to say — the manner of expressing it in writing.

SAINTE-BEUVE, Fromentin in Nouveaux lundis, VII (Paris); GONSE, Eugène Fromentin (Paris, 1881), with letters and important inedited fragments; Les dessins d'Eugène Fromentin (London, 1877, folio); BLANCHON, Lettres de Jeunesse de Fromentin (Paris, 1909); BRUNETIÈRE, Variétés Littéraires (Paris, s. d.); GILLET, Eugène Fromentin et Dominique in Revue de Paris (1 Aug., 1905).

LOUIS GILLET

Count Louis de Baude Frontenac

A governor of New France, b. at Paris, 1662; d. at Quebec, 28 Nov., 1698. His father was captain of the royal castle of St-Germain-en-laye; his mother, née Phelypeaux, was the daughter of the king's secretary of state; Louis XIII was his godfather. By his valour and skill he won the rank of marshall of the king's camps and armies. He served in Holland, France, Italy and Germany, and also in Candia where Turenne had sent him to command a contingent against the Turks. A brilliant military reputation, therefore, preceeded him to Canada. During his first administration (1672-1682) he built a fort at Cataracouy (now Kingston) to awe the Iroquois and facilitate communications with the West. To explore the course of the Mississippi, previously discovered by Joliet and Marquette, he sent Cavelier de La Salle, who named the country watered by that river Louisiana, in honour of Louis XIV. Although intelligent and magnanimous, brave and unflinching in peril, he was proud, imperious, and ready to sacrifice all to personal animosity. He quarrelled with most of the officials of the colony over petty questions: with his councillors, with the intendant (Duchesneau), with the Governor of Montreal (Perrot), and with Mgr de Laval, whose prohibition of the liquor-traffic with the Indians he judged harmful to commercial interests. The king, after vainly trying to curb his haughtiness, recalled him in 1682.

In 1689, when the uprising of the Iroquois and the Lachine massacre, in retaliation of Governor Denonville's treacherous dealing, threatened the existence of the colony, Frontenac was sent to the rescue and was hailed as a deliverer. He had to fight the allied Iroquois and English; but his bravery and ability were equal to the task. After d'Iberville's brilliant exploits in Hudson Bay, Frontenac divided his forces into three corps, which captured Corlar (Schenectady), Salmon Falls (N.H.) and Casco (Me.). When, to avenge these disasters, Boston sent a fleet against Quebec (1690), Frontenac's response to the summons of Phipps's envoy was: "Go tell your master that we shall answer him by the mouths of our guns" — a threat which was made good by the enemy's defeat. In 1696 Frontenac wisely disregarded the instructions of France to evacuate the upper country, which would have ruined the colony, and merely observed a defensive attitude. He dealt the Iroquois power a severe blow, burned the villages of the Onnontagués and Onneyouts, and devastated their country. By his orders d'Iberville razed Fort Pemquid in Acadia, captured St. John's, Newfoundland, and nearly the entire island, and took possession of all Hudson Bay Territory. Frontenac died sincerely regretted by the whole colony which he had saved from ruin. His character was a mixture of good and bad qualities. The latter were less evident during his second administration and his talents rendered eminent services. He found Canada weakened and attacked on all sides; he left it in peace, enlarged, and respected. He has been justly called "saver of the country". In spite of his Jansenistic educataion and prejudices against the bishop, the Jesuits, and even the Sulpicians, he possessed a rich fund of faith and piety. He was a faithful friend of the Recollects, and was buried in their church.

HOPKINS, "Canada, An Encyclopedia of the Country" (Toronto, 1890); GARNEAU, "Histoire du Canada"(Montreal, 1882); FERLAND, "Cours d'histoire du Canada" (Quebec, 1882); ROCHEMONTEIX, "Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle-France" (Paris, 1896); CHAPAIS, "Jean Talon" (Quebec, 1904); GAUTHIER, "Histoire du Canada" (Quebec, 1876).

LIONEL LINDSAY

Blessed Frowin

Benedictine abbot, d. 11 March, 1178. Of the early life of Frowin nothing is known, save that he is claimed as a monk of their community by the historians of the two great Benedictine abbeys of Einsiedeln in Switzerland and St. Blasius in Baden. The first authentic fact in his career is his election as abbot, the year 1142, to succeed St. Adelhelm in the newly established monastery of Engelberg (q.v.) in the Canton of Unterwalden, Switzerland. As abbot Frowin was conspicuous for sanctity, learning and administrative ability. Through his efforts the possessions and privileges, civil and ecclesiastical, of the abbey were greatly increased, while its renown as a home of learning, art, and piety spread far and wide. Himself a man of great intellectual endowments thoroughly versed in all the science, sacred and profane, of his time, he established a famous school in his abbey, in which besides the trivium and quadrivium, philosophy and theology were likewise taught. The library which he collected possessed, for those days, a vast number of maruscripts. According to a list that he himself has left us, it contained Homer, Cicero, Cato, Ovid and other authors of antiquity. This rich collection perished in 1729, when the abbey was destroyed by fire. Blessed Frowin not only copied books for his library, but composed several. Two of these, a commentary on the Lord's Prayer, and a treatise in seven books, "De Laude Liberi Arbitrii" ("In Praise of Free Will", but in reality a discussion of the chief theological questions of his day, directed, it is thought, against the errors of Abelard) are still extant, having been discovered by Mabillon in the archives of Einsiedeln. Frowin's other works, Commentaries on the Ten Commandments and various parts of Holy Scripture, are lost. Though never formally beatified, Frowin has commonly been styled "Blessed" by the chroniclers (see "Act. SS.", March, IX, 683). Pétin ("Dictionnaire Hagiographique" I, iiii) gives 7 March as his feast day, and credits him with many miracles.

JOHN F.X. MURPHY

St. Fructuosus of Braga

An Archbishop, d. 16 April, c. 665. He was the son of a Gothic general, and studied in Palencia. After the death of his parents he retired as a hermit to a desert in Galicia. Numerous pupils gathered around him, and thus originated the monastery of Complutum (Compludo) over which he himself at first presided, later, he appointed an abbot and again retired into the desert. In the course of time, he founded nine other monasteries, also one for 80 virgins under the saintly abbess Benedicta. In 654, Fructuosus was called to the Bishopric of Dumium, and on 1 December, 656, to the Archbishopric of Braga. The life of this greatest of Spanish monastic bishops was written by Abbot Valerius, and based on the accounts of his pupils. In 1102, his relics were transferred to Compostela. The feast day is the 16 of April. Fructuosus is depicted with a stag, which was devoted to him, because he had been saved by Fructuosus from the hunters. There are still extant two monastic rules written by Fructuosus. The first (25 chapters) was destined for the monastery of Complutum, it has an appendix (called pactum), containing the formulae of consecration and the vows. The second, called the "common" rule, which consists of chapters and refers to a union of monasteries governed by an abbot-bishop, is addressed chiefly to superiors of monasteries.

GABRIEL MEIER

St. Fructuosus of Tarragona

A bishop and martyr; d. 21 January, 259. During the night of 16 January, he, together with his deacons Augurius and Eulogius, was led into prison, and on 21 January tried by the judge Aemilianus. He confessed that he was a Christian and a bishop, whereupon all three were sentenced to be burnt alive. They underwent the ordeal courageously, and, praying and with outstretched hands, gave up the ghost. In this position they are depicted. St. Augustine mentions them in one of his sermons (273), and the Spanish poet Prudentius has celebrated them in a hymn (Peristephanon, hymn, 6).

GABRIEL MEIER

Johann Nepomuk Fuchs

A chemist and mineralogist, b. at Mattenzell, near Bremberg, Lower Bavaria, 15 May, 1774; d. at Munich, 5 March, 1856. He originally studied medicine, but after the year 1801 devoted himself to chemistry and mineralogy. Following the custom of his country, he pursued his studies at various universities: Heidelberg, Berlin, Freiburg, and Paris. In 1805 he taught chemistry and mineralogy at the University of Landshut, and at Munich in 1826. In 1823 he was nominated a member of the Academy of Sciences and in 1854 conservator of the Museum of Mineralogy of Munich; two years before his death, the honour of nobility was conferred upon him by the King of Bavaria. He received many other honours. His memoirs, which are numerous, and play an important part in the development of the sciences of mineralogy and chemistry, are given in the collections of the Munich Academy, in Kastner's "Archives", Poggendorff's "Annalen", Dingler's "Journal", and other publications.

He wrote several books, among others one "On the Present Influence of Chemistry and Mineralogy" (Munich, 1824); one on the "Theories of the Earth" (Munich, 1824); "Natural History of the Mineral Kingdom" (Kempten, 1842); and a work on the preparation, properties, and uses of soluble glass (Munich, 1857). His name is to this day associated with soluble glass, an alkaline silicate used in a special kind of fresco painting, called stereochromy, so much so that sometimes it is called Fuchs's soluble glass. Today soluble glass is also used in the application of bandages in surgery. His discovery of water glass was published in 1823. He pursued his researches in other departments of technical knowledge, his work on cement being particularly valuable. He retired from active life in 1852.

His collected works, produced by the committee of the central administration of the polytechnic union in the Kingdom of Bavaria, were edited, with is necrology, by Kaiser (Munich, 1856). His work included investigations on the replacement of one chemical group by another in minerals; the discovery of the amorphic state of several bodies, the artificial production of ultramarine and improvements in the dyeing industry, in the manufacture of beet-root sugar and in brewing. A variety of muscovite, containg nearly four per cent of chromium (chrome mica), is named "Fuchsite" after him. Fuchs, who owed his early education to Frauenzell and the suppressed Jesuits at Ratisbon, was throughout his life a practical and earnest Catholic.

T. O'CONOR SLONE

Joseph Führich

(Born 1800; died 1876.) Joseph Führich was as Catholic in his art as in his life. He was fond of avowing his principles on art with great emphasis; he declares that religion, art, and nature are harmoniously combined in his mind, that he does not admit that ecclesiastical art is its own end, but that its end is to be serviceable in God's house, not as mere decoration, but as a means of instruction, in order to manifest to the heart as far as possible by means of the senses the life of faith. As a painter his works, like Overbeck's, were inspired by piety, while in his conceptions and their expression he resembles Cornelius. As the son of a poor painter in the Bohemian town of Kratzau, he learned the elements of the art in his father's workshop and practised drawing while keeping his flock, the Christ-Child and the adoration of the shepherds being his favourite subject. His father brought him at the age of sixteen to the painter Bergler in Prague.

This artist was so well pleased with two compositions assigned by him to the novice, that he advised him to exhibit some of his pictures. Two of them were actually bought, and several art patrons procured for him the funds necessary to attend the academy. The reading of Romantic poets soon made a Romanticist of him. Cornelius's illustrations of "Faust" and Overbeck's sketch of Tasso confirmed this tendency. On his journeys to Dresden and Vienna he became fond of Dürer's creations. He illustrated the Lord's Prayer in nine etchings and Tieck's "Genoveva" in fifteen. To the recommendation of some Romanticists he was indebted for the means for a journey to Rome, which he began towards the end of 1826. In Italy he studied the works of different periods of art, above all acquired the historical style, studied the representation of the great Christian mysteries, and modified his method by the study of the works of Raphael and Michelangelo. Of course he did not fail to become acquainted with Fra Angelico, a spirit congenial to his own. In Rome he immediately joined the Nazarene School, learned monumental technic, and completed the Tasso cycle in the Villa Massimi by adding three frescoes: "Armida and Rinaldo", "Armida in the Enchanted Forest", and "The Crusaders at the Holy Sepulchre." The year 1829 saw him again in Prague, but in 1834 he went to Vienna, where he lived till his death.

It is noteworthy that two of his early pictures, painted shortly after his return, viz. "Jacob and Rachel" and "Mary's Journey over the Mountains", sold for five times the original price, even during his lifetime. In 1841 he became professor in the academy of Vienna and was raised to the order of knighthood in 1854, and was henceforth commonly called Ritter von Führich. Executed with faith the same care as the paintings just mentioned, are "Booz and Ruth", "St. Gudula", "Christ on His way to the Garden". He painted religious pictures almost exclusively; of Old-Testament subjects we may mention: "God writes the Commandments upon the Tables of Stone", "Josue and the destruction of Jericho", "The Sorrowing Jews"; of New -Testament pictures: "Joseph's Dream", "Joseph and Mary on their Way to Jerusalem", "The Birth of Christ", "The Storm on the Sea", "The Miraculous Draught of Fishes". These pictures prove the grandeur and loftiness of religious themes and testify to the moral and mystical conception of the artist. Purity in form an energy in expression, a simple beauty in movement and dress, without pretension and affectation, are their ummistakable excellencies. The artist's desire to apply the monumental fresco-technic in his native country fulfilled twice. In 1844-46 he painted the Stations of the Cross in the church of St. John Nepomucene in Vienna. The work was appreciated on all sides, and copies of it have reached America and the most distant missions.

In 1854-61 he painted, together with others, the church of Altlerchenfeld in Vienna. The artist himself has explained to us the plan of this Christian epos. Christ's activity as the Saviour before, during, and after his earthly careen is presented here to the eyes of the faithful as in a great picture Bible; in the vestibule, what precedes the creation of man; on the walls of the entrance and in the aisles, the prototypes of the Old Testament; in the nave, scenes from the New Testament; the pictures in the transept represent the proximate preparation for the redemption; over the main altar, the Crucifixion, and in the choir, Christ's life in His Church. The plan, as well as the composition, is magnificent, in the execution he was aided by less skilful hands, and the colouring is at times imperfect, as is the case in most of the works of the Nazarenes. But Führich acquired his greatest fame as a draughts-man. Though we may miss at times individuality, characters drawn from life, and dramatic movement, a fact which wilI not astonish us, considering the ideal character of his subjects, still he meets the essential requirements of his theme, often enraptures us by his naïveté and piety, by his noble lines and thoughtful invention. His cyclical pictures have become the joy of the Christian people. The master here achieves his ideal of the artist's work. The artist must be a man of meditation and a man of enthusiasm, who can translate the element of instruction from the purely intellectual sphere into that of the imagination, turn mere inspection into contemplation. The Christmas cycle or "The Way to Bethlehem" in its twelve numbers contains the most beautiful pictorial idylls. Full of charm and touching is the symbolical figure of the human soul, whose attention is first called by the personification of Christian art to the mystery of the Incarnation and which then follows the events with the light of meditation and the inspiration of art. The fifteen pictures of the Easter cycle, "He is Risen", surprise us by the fertility of ideas, by the astonishing skill in the use of symbolical language, by their dignified earnestness and deep truth. Equally imperishable works of art are the eleven drawings and etchings entitled "Christ's Triumph". In "Thomas à Kempis" (to the text of Guido Görres) Führich found an opportunity to throw the principal tenets of our religion into poetical form, and at the same time to reveal the wealth of his Christian heart.

To these works must be added "The Life of Mary", "The Legend of St. Wendelin", "The Psalter", "Poor Henry", and "Memorials for Our Time". Most of these drawings were made for woodcuts, "The Prodigal Son" and "Ruth" for copperplate engravings. Führich's Catholic principles of æsthetics are laid down in his beautiful booklet "Von der Kunst" also in "Kunst und ihre Formen." Moreover, we have from his pen "Briefe aus Italien" and an autobiography; a new edition of the latter, prepared by friends and enriched with additions, appeared in 1875 in Vienna.

G. GIETMAN

Fulbert of Chartres

Bishop, b. between 952 and 962; d. 10 April, 1028 or 1029. Mabillon and others think that he was born in Italy, probably at Rome; but Pfister, his latest biographer, designates as his birthplace the Diocese of Laudun in the present department of Gard in France. He was of humble parentage and received his education at the school of Reims, where he had as teacher the famous Gerbert who in 999 ascended the papal throne as Sylvester II. In 990 Fulbert opened a school at Chartres which soon became the most famous seat of learning in France and drew scholars not only from the remotest parts of France, but also from Italy, Germany, and England. Fulbert was also chancellor of the church of Chartres and treasurer of St. Hilary's at Poitiers. So highly was he esteemed as a teacher that his pupils were wont to style him "venerable Socrates". He was a strong opponent of the rationalistic tendencies which had infected some dialecticians of his times, and often warned his pupils against such as extol their dialectics above the teachings of the Church and the testimony of the Bible. Still it was one of Fulbert's pupils, Berengarius of Tours, who went farthest in subjecting faith to reason. In 1007 Fulbert succeeded the deceased Rudolph as Bishop of Chartres and was consecrated by his metropolitan, Archbishop Leutheric of Sens. He owed the episcopal dignity chiefly to the influence of King Robert of France, who had been his fellow student at Reims. As bishop he continued to teach in his school and also retained the treasurership of St. Hilary. When, about 1020, the cathedral of Chartres burned down, Fulbert at once began to rebuild it in greater splendour. In this undertaking he was financially assisted by King Canute of England, Duke William of Aquitaine, and other European sovereigns. Though Fulbert was neither abbot nor monk, as has been wrongly asserted by some historians, still he stood in friendly relation with Odilo of Cluny, Richard of St. Vannes, Abbo of Fleury, and other monastic celebrities of his times. He advocated a reform of the clergy, severely rebuked those bishops who spent much of their time in warlike expeditions, and inveighed against the practice of granting ecclesiastical benefices to laymen.

Fulbert's literary productions include 140 epistles, 2 treatises, 27 hymns, and parts of the ecclesiastical Office. His epistles are of great historical value, especially on account of the light they throw on the liturgy and discipline of the Church in the eleventh century. His two treatises are in the form of homilies. The first has as its subject: Misit Herodes rex manus, ut affligeret quosdam de ecclesia, etc. (Acts xii l); the second is entitled "Tractatus contra Judaeos" and proves that the prophecy of Jacob, "Non auferetur sceptrum de Juda", etc. (Gen., xlix, 10), had been fulfilled in Christ. Five of his nine extant sermons are on the blessed Virgin Mary towards whom he had a great devotion. The life of St. Aubert, bishop of Cambrai (d. 667), which is sometimes ascribed to Fulbert, was probably not written by him. Fulbert's epistles were first edited by Papire le Masson (Paris,1585). His complete works were edited by Charles de Villiers (Paris, 1608), then inserted in "Bibl. magna Patrum" (Cologne,16l8) XI, in "Bibl. maxima Patri." (Lyons, 1677), XVIII, and with additions, in Migne, P.L., CXLI, 189-368.

MICHAEL OTT

St. Fulcran

Bishop of Lodève; d. 13 February, 1006. According to the biography which Bernard Guidonis, Bishop of Lodève (d. 1331), has left us his saintly predecessor, Fulcran came of a distinguished family, consecrated himself at an early age to the service of the Church, became a priest, and from his youth led a pure and holy life. When in 949 Theoderich, Bishop of Lodève, died, Fulcran, notwithstanding his unwillingness, was chosen as his successor and was consecrated by the Archbishop of Narbonne on 4 February of the same year. He was untiring in his efforts to conserve the moral life within his diocese, especially among the clergy and the religious orders; he rebuilt many churches and convents, among them the cathedral dedicated to St. Genesius and the church of the Holy Redeemer with the Benedictine monastery attached to it. The poor and the sick were the objects of his special care; for their support he founded hospitals and endowed others already existing. The following anecdote from his life is worthy of mention. A bishop of Gaul had fallen away from the Faith and had accepted Jewish teachings. When the news reached Fulcran, he exclaimed in an excess of zeal: "This bishop should be burned!" Shortly afterwards the renegade prelate was actually seized by his incensed flock and delivered up to death by fire. Fulcran was then filled with remorse that by his utterance he should have been the cause of the apostate's death, and after doing severe penance, he made a pilgrimage to Rome, there to receive absolution for his supposed guilt. After his death he was buried in the cathedral of Lodève and honoured as a saint. His body, which had been preserved intact, was burned by the Huguenots in 1572, and only a few particles of his remains were saved. He is the second patron of the Diocese of Lodève, and his feast falls on 13th February.

J.P. KIRSCH

Fulda

DIOCESE OF FULDA (FULDENSIS).

This diocese of the German Empire takes its name from the ancient Benedictine abbey of Fulda. To systematize the work of evangelizing Germany, St. Boniface organized a hierarchy on the usual ecclesiastical basis; in Bavaria the Dioceses of Salzburg, Freising, Ratisbon, and Passau; in Franconia and Thuringia, Würzburg, Eichstätt, Buraburg near Fritzlar, and Erfurt. To facilitate missionary work farther north, especially among the Saxons, he sought a suitable spot for the location of a monastery. He chose for this mission St. Sturmius, who, after journeying far and wide, found an appropriate place in the great forest of Buchonia, in the district of Grabfeld on the Fulda. Boniface sanctioned this choice of a location, and petitioned Carloman, to whom the country round about belonged, to grant him the site for a monastery. Carloman yielded to the saint's request, and also induced the Frankish nobles who had estates in the vicinity to bestow a part of them on the Church. On 12 March, 744, St. Sturmius took solemn possession of the land, and raised the cross. The wilderness was soon cleared, and the erection of the monastery and church, the latter dedicated to the Most Holy Redeemer, begun under the personnel direction of St. Boniface. He appointed St. Sturmius first abbot of the new foundation, which he intended to surpass in greatness all existing monasteries of Germany, and to be a nursery for priests. The rule was modelled on that of the Abbey of Monte Cassino, as Sturmius himself had gone to Italy (748) for the express purpose of becoming familiar with it. To secure absolute autonomy for the new abbey, Boniface obtained from Pope Zachary a privilege, dated 4 November, 751, placing it immediately under the Holy See, and removing it from all episcopal jurisdiction. The authenticity of this document has frequently been called into question, but on the whole it is considered as well established. (For further details see Tangl in "Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung", 1899; and B. Sepp, "Die Fuldaer Privilegien Frage", Ratisbon, 1908.) In 753 Pepin gave the royal sanction to this exemption from episcopal jurisdiction. Boniface showed his love for Fulda when he charged that his remains should be laid to rest there.

Under the prudent administration of St. Sturmius (d. 779), the monastery soon rose to greater splendour; from an early period the tomb of St. Boniface made it a national sanctuary for Christian Germany. Great success crowned the agricultural work of the monks, and small colonies which were established in different places gradually became the centres of villages and civil communities. Soon Fulda was the mother-house of a number of smaller monasteries, which were later administered by provosts under the superiorship of the abbot. The gifts of German princes, nobles, and private individuals increased the landed possessions of the abbey so rapidly that they soon extended over distant parts of Germany; there were estates in Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse, Bavaria, Lorraine, Swabia: possessions along the Rhine, in East Frisia, and even at Rome (the church of Sant' Andrea). Even in artistic and literary lines Fulda rose to great importance. On the site of the first church, which had been artistically decorated by Sturmius, there rose under Abbots Baugulf (779-802), Ratgar (802-17), Eigil (818-22), and Rabanus Maurus (822-42) a magnificent edifice which roused the admiration of contemporaries, and even of posterity, and exerted a lasting influence on architectural and artistic activity in distant places. In addition to architecture, sculpture and painting were zealously cultivated. The monastic school established by Sturmius began to flourish during the time of Charlemagne and Alcuin, and, under Rabanus Maurus, particularly, was the chief nursery of civilization and learning in Germany, and became celebrated throughout Europe. It was open not only to theological students, but also to young men desiring to embrace secular careers. The curriculum embraced the subjects usually taught during the Middle Ages: the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, physics, and astronomy), the different branches of theology, and the German language. Among the most renowned pupils of this school were: Rabanus Maurus, Walafried Strabo, Servatus Lupus, Otfried of Weissenburg, Rudolfus Fuldensis, Williram, Probus, and Meginhard; among the laity: Einhard, Bernhard, King of Italy, and Ulrich von Hutten. Rabanus also founded a library to familiarize the Germans with religious and classical literature, and the zeal of the monks soon produced rich treasures of valuable manuscripts. Unfortunately the greater part of this library disappeared during the looting of the abbey by the Hessians in 1631, and has not since been discovered.

Gradually the monastery rose to a commanding position in the German Empire. From 968 the abbot was primate of all the Benedictine monasteries of Germany and Gaul; from the time of Otto I, arch-chancellor of the empress, whom he crowned jointly with the Elector of Mainz; from the twelfth century he was a prince of the empire; from 1184 had the privilege of sitting at the left of the emperor; and from 1360 the imperial banner was borne before him by a knight. This glory, however, was not wholly without shadows. The monastic discipline was relaxed to such a degree that Abbot Marquard (1150-65) undertook to carry out a reform by introducing the regulations in force at Hirsau (Consuetudines Hirsaugienses). The importance of the school as a centre of learning also declined. The great wealth of the abbey in landed possessions, tithes, revenues, and regalia drew an increasing number of nobles to the monastery. By the twelfth century the monks of noble birth had monopolized the seats of the chapter and, in the course of time, practically all the important offices of the abbey itself, as well as the provostships of the dependent houses, were held by members of the German nobility. The difficulty of administering the vast landed possessions caused the abbots to grant certain sections in fief, which eventually resulted in great losses to the abbey; for the feudatories frequently turned their positions to their own personal interests, and sought to convert the fiefs into private property. One of the most notable illustrations of the greed of these monastic stewards is shown by the action of Count Johann von Ziegenhain in the fourteenth century, who, in an insurrection of the burgers of the city of Fulda against Abbot Heinrich VI von Hohenberg (1315-53), headed an attack on the monastery. Not infrequently, too, the obligations of the abbots as princes of the empire, and the demands made upon them by the state proved most detrimental to the interests of the monastery and its inmates. In 1294, on application of the convent, the pope enjoined a separation of the abbatial and the conventual tables, which was put into effect in 1300 under Abbot Heinrich V von Weilnau (1288-1313) (cf. Rübsam, "Heinrich V. von Weilnau, Fürstabt von Fulda", Fulda, 1879). Imperial capitulations, of which there are records as early as the time of Heinrich VII von Kranlucken (1353-72), especially those of Johann I von Merlau (1395-1440), the "Old Statutes of 1395", restricted to a considerable degree the authority of the abbot over the convent, and raised correspondingly the independent status of that institution. In the mother-house the dean eventually replaced the abbot for all practical purposes. For centuries the chapter preserved this independence, which involved the almost complete exclusion of the abbot from the ecclesiastical organization of his monastery.

At a comparatively early date the teachings of the Reformers found access to the chapter of Fulda, with which, in 1513, the Abbey of Hersfeld had been united; and Abbot Johannes III von Henneberg (1521-41) was forced to consent to a decree of reform favouring the spread of the new doctrines. The zealous Abbot Balthasar von Dermbach (1570-1606) proved an earnest restorer of discipline in the chapter, vigorously inaugurating the work of the Counter-Reformation. Banished by the members of the chapter and their colleagues in 1576, he was unable to return to his abbey until 1602, great progress having been made meanwhile by the imperial administrators in restoring the Catholic Faith. The foundation of a Jesuit college in 1571 was the signal for the reflorescence of the school, which had sunk to comparative insignificance. In addition to the Jesuit gymnasium, Gregory XIII founded (1584) a papal seminary, which he placed under the direction of the Jesuits. Both of these institutions have contributed largely to the maintenance and spread of the Catholic Faith in Germany. A similar zeal for reform was displayed by Balthasar's second successor, Johann Bernhard Schenk von Schweinsberg (1623-32), whose exertions, together with the decrees of several papal visitors, particularly Pietro Luigi Caraffa (1627), restored to the abbot a certain measure of his proper authority, over against that of the chapter and the professors of noble birth. The decrees of reform issued by Caraffa, against which the provosts rebelled after the nuncio's departure, were repeatedly confirmed by the Holy See. The capitulars and provosts of noble birth still retained the privilege of admitting into the chapter only such as could show a certain number of noble ancestors, and this prerogative received papal confirmation in 1731. During the Thirty Years War the chapter was again menaced; in 1631, Landgrave Wilhelm V of Hesse, by virtue of a treaty with Gustavus Adolphus, received the abbey in fief to Sweden, and sought gradually to make Protestantism predominant. After the battle of Nördlingen, however, he no longer had power over Fulda. When the turmoil of the war had ceased, the abbey experienced a period of peace and prosperity. In 1732 the Jesuit and Benedictine schools were united, enlarged, and converted into a university. Benedict XIV raised the abbey to the rank of a bishopric (5 Oct., 1752), with the retention of its monastic organization. The first prince-bishop was Amand von Buseck (1737-56), the collegiate chapter of one dean and fourteen capitulars being now the cathedral chapter.

By the Imperial Delegates' Enactment (Reichsdeputationshauptschluss) of 1802 the abbey was secularized, and bestowed on the Prince of Orania as a secular principality; it embraced at this time forty sq. miles, with a population of 100,000. Under Napoleon, in 1809, it was ceded to the Grand Duchy of Frankfort; in 1815, to Hesse-Kassel, with which, in 1866, it passed to Prussia. The university was closed under the law of secularization, and the papal seminary was converted into an episcopal seminary. The last prince-bishop, Adalbert III von Harstall (1788-1802), died in 1814.

In accordance with the Bulls "Provida solersque" of 1821 and "Ad dominici gregis custodiam" of 1827, the Diocese of Fulda was re-established in 1829, and made suffragan to the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine, the first bishop being Johann Adam Rieger (1829-31).

In 1857 and 1871 the boundaries of the new diocese were so altered as to define the territory now embraced within it. It was seriously affected by the Kulturkampf, the see being vacant from 1873 to 1881, and the seminary closed between 1873 and 1886; some of the religious communities suppressed at that time have never been re-established. The present bishop (1909) is Joseph Damian Schmitt, consecrated in 1907.

Statistics

The Diocese of Fulda embraces the Prussian administrative district of Kassel of the province of Hesse-Nassau, Bockenheim (a section of the civic circle of Frankfort-on-the-Main in the administrative district of Wiesbaden), the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar, and one parish of the Grand Duchy of Hesse; Catholic population in 1900 was 167,306, in 1909 about 200,000. It comprises the exempt civic district of Fulda, with 3 parishes and 14 deaneries; for the care of souls, 150 parishes and curacies; 40 chaplaincies and posts as assistants; 53 administrative and teaching positions. The bishop is elected by the cathedral chapter, which consists of a dean, 4 capitulars and 4 prebends. The clergy employed in the care of souls in 1909 number 226 secular and 26 regular priests, giving a total of 252 active clergy, including pastors, curates, chaplains, and assistant priests, as well as priests engaged in the work of teaching and administrative offices. The following orders and congregations are represented in the diocese: Franciscans, at Fulda and Salmünster, with (1907) 35 fathers, and 40 brothers; Oblates of Mary Immaculate, at Hünfeld, with 28 fathers, and 29 brothers; Brothers of Mercy, at Fulda, with 6 brothers. Communities of women are: 1 abbey of Benedictine nuns at Fulda, with 35 sisters; 1 monastery of the English Ladies at Fulda, with 36 sisters; Ursulines at Fritzlar, 32 sisters; Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, 44 communities, with 363 sisters; Poor Servants of Christ, at Frankfort-Bockenheim, 18 sisters; Grey Nuns of St. Elizabeth, at Eisenach, 9 sisters; Vincentians at Kassel, 27 sisters; School Sisters of Divine Mercy at Kassel, 26 sisters.

The diocesan institutions are: the episcopal seminary at Fulda, with eight professors of theology; the episcopal gymnasium or preparatory seminary at Fulda; the episcopal Latin schools at Amöneburg, Geisa, Hünfeld, and Orb; the school for orphaned boys at Sannerz; a similar institution for girls at Maberzell, near Fulda; the reform school for young women at Horas near Fulda; St. Joseph's House for Orphans and First Communicants at Hünfeld; the Lioba Hospital for Incurables at Fulda; and the asylum for imbeciles at Fulda. The most important church of the diocese is the cathedral at Fulda, in the style of the Renaissance, erected by Prince-Abbot Adalbert von Schleifras (1704-12) on the site of the church built by Abbot Baugulf and his successors. It contains precious altars, a rich treasury, and, as its most important shrine, the tomb of St. Boniface, at which the bishops of Prussia, Baden, and Würtemberg gather once a year (cf. Pfaff, "Der Dom zu Fulda", 2nd ed., Fulda, 1855). Mention should also be made of the church of St. Michael at Fulda, dating from Carlovingian times; the church on the Petersberg near Fulda; the church of St. Peter at Fritzlar, erected early in the thirteenth century; and the Protestant church of St. Elizabeth at Marburg, a noble specimen of the thirteenth century Gothic. The most popular place of pilgrimage in the diocese is the tomb of St. Boniface.

BROUWER, Fuldensium antiquitates libri IV (Antwerp, 1612); SCHANNAT, Corpus traditionum Fuldensium (Leipzig, 1724); IDEM, Fuldischer Lehn-hof (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1726); IDEM, Vindiciæ quorundam archivi Fuldensis diplomatum (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1728); DRONKE, Traditiones et antiquitates Fuldenses (Kassel, 1844); IDEM, Codex diplomaticus Fuldensis (Kassel, 1850; index, 1862); ARND, Geschichte des Hochstifts Fulda (Frankfort, 1862); GEGENBAUER, Das Kloster Fulda im Karolingerzeitalter (2 vols., 1871, 1873); KOMP, Die zweite Schule Fuldas und das päpstliches Seminar (Fulda, 1877); IDEM in Kirchenlex., s. v.; LOTZ, Die Hochschule zu Fulda, in Hessenland, XII (1898); HEYDENREICH, Das älteste Fuldaer Cartular (Leipzig, 1899); RICHTER, Die ersten Anfänge der Bau- und Kunsttätigkeit des Klosters Fulda (Fulda, 1900); IDEM, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Abtei und der Diözese Fulda, I-III (Fulda, 1904-07); Schematismus der Diözese Fulda (Fulda, 1904; new ed., 1909); Festgabe zum Bonifatiusjubilæum, 1905 (Fulda, 1905); a collection of original documents relating to Fulda is in the course of preparation.

JOSEPH LINS

St. Fulgentius

A Bishop of Ecija (Astigi), in Spain, at the beginning of the seventh century. Like his brothers Leander and Isidore, two holy Archbishops of Seville, of whom the first was older and the second younger than Fulgentius, he consecrated himself to the service of the Church. A sister of the three was St. Florentina (q.v.). Their father Severianus lived at first in Cartagena; he was a Roman, and, according to later though doubtful information, an imperial prefect. Exact data regarding the life of Fulgentius are wanting, as he is mentioned only occasionally in contemporary sources. Leander, in his "Libellus" on the religious life written for his sister Florentina states that he has sent Fulgentius back to his native town of cartagena, which he now regrets as he fears that harm may befall him, and he requests Florentina to pray for him. What the danger was to which Fulgentius was exposed we have no means of knowing. Probably through the influence of Leander, who was made Archbishop of Seville in the year 584 and who played an important part in the affairs of the Visigothic kingdom, Fulgentius became Bishop of Astigi (Ecija), in the eccleslastical province of Seville. As Leander died in 600 and Pegasius is shown to have still been Bishop of Ecija in 590, we may safely assume that Fulgentius was chosen bishop between 690 and 600; at all events he already occupied the see in 610. Isidore, who succeeded to the Archbishopric of Seville upon the death of his brother Leander, dedicated to Fulgentius "his lord, the servant of God", his work on the offices of the Church, "De ecclesiasticis officiis". In fact it was at the solicitation of Fulgentius that he wrote this account of the origin and authors of the Church services i.e., of the Liturgy.

At the second synod of Seville (619), for which Isidore had assembled the bishops of the province of Baetica, a controversy between the Bishop of Astigi and the Bishop of Cordova regarding a church which was claimed by each as belonging to a parish in his diocese was brought up for settlement; a commission was appointed, and it was declared that thirty year's undisturbed possession should constitute a legal title. Fulgentius attended the synod in person, his name being found among the signatures to the Acts of the council. This is the last event in the life of Fulgentius for which we have positive proof. In any case, he died before the year 633, as one Marcianus is shown to have then heen Bishop of Astigi. Fulgentius, like his sister and brothers, was reverenced as a saint. In Spain his feast was celebrated on different days; in the "Acta Sanctorum" of the Bollandists it is on 14 January. He is frequently confused in medieval writings with Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe; some works have also been attributed to him, of which, however, no traces remain. It is said that long after their deaths the bones of St. Fulgentius and those of his sister, St. Florentina, were carried for safety into the Sierra de Guadalupe, and that in the fourteenth century they were found in the village of Berzocana in those mountains.

J.F. KIRSCH

St. Fulgentius

(FABIUS CLAUDIUS GORDIANUS FULGENTIUS).

Born 468, died 533. Bishop of Ruspe in the province of Byzacene in Africa, eminent among the Fathers of the Church for saintly life, eloquence and theological learning. His grandfather, Gordianus, a senator of Carthage, was despoiled of his possessions by the invader Genseric, and banished to Italy, his two sons returned after his death, and, though their house in Carthage had been made over to Arian priests, they recovered some property in Byzacene. Fulgentius was born at Telepte in that province. His father, Claudius, soon died, and he was brought up by his mother, Mariana. He studied Greek letters before Latin "quo facilius posset, victurus inter Afros, locutionem Graecam, servatis aspirationibus, tamquam ibi nutritus exprimere". We learn from these words of his biographer that the Greek aspirates were hard for a Latin to pronounce. We are told that Fulgentius at an early age committed all Homer to memory, and throughout his life his pronunciation of Greek was excellent. He was also well trained in Latin literature. As he grew older, he governed his house wisely in subjection to his mother. He was favored by the provincial authorities, and made procurator of the fiscus. But a desire of religious life came over him: he practiced austerities privately in the world for a time, until he was moved by the "Enarrationes" of St. Augustine on Psalm xxxvi to betake himself to a monastery which had been founded by a bishop named Faustus near his episcopal city, from which like other Catholic bishops he had been exiled by the Vandal king, Hunneric. The fervent appeal of the young man won his admission from Faustus, to whom he was already well known. His mother clamored with tears at the door of the monastery to see her son; but he gave no sign of his presence there. He became ill from excessive abstinence, but recovered without renouncing it. His worldly goods he made over to his mother, leaving his younger brother dependent on her.

But Faustus was obliged to fly from renewed persecution, and by his advice Fulgentius sought a small monastery not far off, whose abbot, Felix, had been his friend in the world. Felix insisted upon resigning his office to Fulgentius. A contest of humility ended in the agreement of all that Fulgentius should be co-abbot. Felix cared for the house, and Fulgentius instructed the brethren; Felix showed charity to the guests, Fulgentius edified them with discourse. A raid of Moors made it necessary to remove to a safer spot, and a new retreat was started at Idida in Mauretania, but Fulgentius soon left Felix, having conceived an ardent desire to visit the monasteries of Egypt, for he had been reading the "Institutiones" and "Collationes" of Cassian, and he also hoped to be no longer superior, and to be able to keep yet stricter abstinence. He took ship at Carthage for Alexandria with a companion named Redemptus. On his arrival at Syracuse, the holy bishop of that city, Eulalius, told him. "The lands to which you wish to travel are separated from the communion of Peter by an heretical quarrel". Fulgentius therefore stopped a few months with Eulalius, and then sought further advice from an exiled bishop of his own province, who was living as a monk on a tiny island off the coast of Sicily. He was recommended to return to his own monastery, but "not to forget the Apostles". In consequence, he made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he was present at a speech made by Theodoric before the senate, and had an opportunity of despising all the magnificence the court of the Gothic king could show. His return was hailed with joy in Africa, and a nobleman of Byzacene gave him fertile land on which he established a new monastery. But Fulgentius retired from his position as superior in order to live a more hidden life in a large and strict abbey which flourished on a rocky island. Here he worked, read, and contemplated. He was an accomplished scribe, and could make fans of palm leaves. Felix, however, refused to submit to the loss of his brother abbot, and he got Bishop Faustus to claim Fulgentius as his own monk and to order his return to Felix. The bishop ensured his continuance as abbot by ordaining him priest.

At this time the Arian King Thrasimund (496-523), though not so cruel a persecutor as his predecessors, allowed no Catholic bishops to be elected in Africa. It was decided in 508 by such bishops as could manage to meet together that it was necessary to brave this law, and it was decreed that elections should take place quietly and simultaneously in all the vacant sees, before the Government had time to take preventive measures. Fulgentius was nominated in several cities; but he had fled into hiding, and could not be found. When he thought all the appointments had been made, he reappeared, but the seaport of Ruspe, where the election had been delayed through the ambition of a deacon of the place, promptly elected him; and against his will he was consecrated bishop of a town he had never seen. He insisted on retaining his monastic habits. He refused all ease and continued his fasts. He had but one poor tunic for winter and summer; he wore no orarium, but used a leathern girdle like a monk; nor would he wear clerical shoes, but went barefoot or with sandals. He had no precious chasuble (casula), and did not permit his monks to have any. Under his chasuble he wore a grey or buff (?) cloak. The same tunic served day and night, and even for the holy Sacrifice, at which, said he, the heart and not the garment should be changed. His first care at Ruspe was to get the citizens to build him a monastery, of which he made Felix abbot, and he never lived without monks around him. But very soon all the new bishops were exiled. Fulgentius was one of the juniors among the 60 African bishops collected in Sardinia, but in their meetings his opinion was eagerly sought, and the letters sent in the name of all were always drawn up by him. He also frequently composed pastoral letters for individual colleagues to send to their flocks. Fulgentius had brought a few monks with him to Sardinia, and he joined with two other bishops and their companions in a common life, so that their house became the oracle of the city of Calaris, and a centre of peace, consolation, and instruction.

It was perhaps about the year 515 that Thrasimund issued a series of ten questions as a challenge to the Catholic bishops, and the reputation of Fulgentius was now so great that the king sent for him to Carthage to speak in the name of the rest. The saint, during his stay in that city, gave constant instructions in the faith of the Holy Trinity, and reconciled many who had been rebaptized by the Arians. He discussed with many wise persons the replies to be made to the ten questions, and at length submitted to the king a small but able work which we still possess under the title of "Contra Arianos liber unus, ad decem objectiones decem responsiones continens". The king then proposed further objections, but was anxious to avoid a second reply as effective as the former one. He took the unfair and tyrannical course of having the new questions, which were expressed at great length, read aloud once to Fulgentius, who was not allowed to have a copy of them, but was expected to give direct answers; though the public would not know whether he had really replied to the point or not. When the bishop pointed out that he could not even recollect the questions after hearing them but once, the king declared that he showed a want of confidence in his own case. Fulgentius was therefore obliged to write a larger work, "Ad Trasimundum regem Vandalorum libri tres", which is a very fine specimen of careful and orthodox theological argument.

Thrasimund seems to have been pleased with this reply. An Arian bishop named Pinta produced an answer which, with Fulgentius's refutation of it, is lost to us. The work now entitled "Adversus Pintam" is spurious. The king wished to keep Fulgentius at Carthage, but the Arian bishops were afraid of his influence and his power of converting, and therefore obtained his exile. He was put on board ship at night, that the people of Carthage might not know of his departure. But contrary winds obliged the vessel to remain several days in port, and nearly all the city was able to take leave of the holy bishop, and to receive Holy Communion from his hand. To a religious man who was weeping he privately prophesied his speedy return and the liberty of the African Church.

Fulgentius was accompanied to Sardinia by many of his monastic brethren. Instead, therefore, of proceeding to his former abode, he obtained permission from the Bishop of Calaris to build an abbey hard by the Basilica of St. Saturninus, and there he ruled over forty monks, who observed the strictest renunciation of private property, while the abbot saw to all their wants with great charity and discretion; but if any monk asked for anything, he refused him at once, saying that a monk should be content with what he is given, and that true religious have renounced their own will, "parati nihil velle et nolle". This severity in a particular point was no doubt tempered by the saint's sweetness of disposition and charm of manner, with which was associated a peculiarly winning and moving eloquence. He wrote much during his second exile. The Scythian monks, led by John Maxentius at Constantinople, had been trying to get their formula approved at Rome: "One of the Trinity was crucified". At the same time they were attacking the traces of Semipelagianism in the works of Faustus of Riez. On the latter point they had full sympathy from the exiles in Sardinia, whose support they had asked. Fulgentius wrote them a letter in the name of the other bishops (Ep. 15), and composed a work "Contra Faustum" in seven books, which is now lost. It was just completed when, in 523, Thrasimund died, and his successor, Hilderic, restored liberty to the Church of Africa.

The exiles returned, and new consecrations took place for all the vacant sees. When the bishops landed at Carthage, Fulgentius had an enthusiastic reception, and his journey to Ruspe was a triumphal progress. He returned to his beloved monastery, but insisted on Felix being sole superior; and he, who was consulted first among all the bishops of the province, asked leave in the monastery for the least things from the abbot Felix. He delivered in writing to the abbey a deed by which it was perpetually exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishops of Ruspe. This document was read in the Council of Carthage of 534. It was in fact the custom in Africa that monasteries should not of necessity be subject to the local bishop, but might choose any bishop at a distance as their ecclesiastical superior. Fulgentius now gave himself to the care of his diocese. He was careful that his clergy should not wear fine clothes, nor devote themselves to secular occupations. They were to have houses near the church, to cultivate their gardens with their own hands, and to be particular about correct pronunciation and sweetness in singing the psalms. He corrected some with words, others with scourging. He ordered fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays for all clergy and widows, and for those of the laity that were able. In this last period of St. Fulgentius's life he published some sermons, and ten books against the Arian Fabianus, of which only fragments remain. A year before his death he was moved to great compunction of heart; he suddenly quitted all his work, and even his monastery, and sailed with a few companions to the island of Circe, where he gave himself to reading, prayer, and fasting in a monastery which he had previously caused to be constructed on a small rock. There he mortified his members and wept in the presence of God alone, as though he anticipated a speedy death. But complaints were made of his absence, and he returned to his labors. He shortly fell into a grievous sickness. In his sufferings he said ceaselessly: "O Lord, give me patience here, and forgiveness hereafter." He refused, as too luxurious, the warm bath which the physicians recommended. He summoned his clergy and in the presence of the monks asked pardon for any want of sympathy or any undue severity he might have shown. He was sick for seventy days, continuing in prayer and retaining all his faculties to the last. His possessions he gave to the poor, and to those of his clergy who were in need. He died on 1 January, 533, in the sixty-fifth year of his life and the twenty-fifth of his episcopate.

Besides the works already mentioned, we still possess of St. Fulgentius some fine treatises, sermons, and letters. The best known is the book "De Fide", a description of the true Faith, written for a certain Peter, who was going on a pilgrimage to the schismatic East. The three books "Ad Monimum", written in Sardinia, are addressed to a friend who understood St. Augustine to teach that God predestinates evil. St. Fulgentius is saturated with St. Augustine's writings and way of thinking, and he defends him from the charge of making God predestinate evil. He himself makes it a matter of faith that unbaptized infants are punished with eternal fire for original sin. No one can by any means be saved outside the Church; all pagans and heretics are infallibly damned. "It is to think unworthily of grace, to suppose that it is given to all men", since not only not all have faith, but there are still some nations which the preaching of the Faith has not yet reached. These harsh doctrines seem to have suited the African temperament. His last work against Semipelagianism was written at Ruspe and addressed to the leaders of the Scythian monks, John and Venerius: "De veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei", in three books. To these we may add the two books, "De remissione peccatorum". He wrote much on the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation: "Liber contra Arianos", "Liber ad Victorem", "Liber ad Scarilam de Incarnatione". To St. Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity, Fulgentius adds a thorough grasp of the doctrine of the Person of Christ as defined against Nestorianism and Eutychianism. His thought is always logical and his exposition clear, and he is the principal theologian of the sixth century, if we do not count St. Gregory. His letters have no biographical interest, but are theological treatises on chastity, virginity, penance, etc. His sermons are eloquent and full of fervour, but are few in number.

The chief authority for the life of St. Fulgentius is the biography by a disciple, almost certainly FERRANDUS, the canonist; it is prefixed to his works, and is also in Acta SS., 1 Jan. See REYNOLDS in Dict. of Christ. Biog., who refers also to SCHROECKH, Kirchengeschichte, xvii, xviii, and WIGGERS, Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, II; there is an excellent summary of his works in FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Patrologia, II; WORTER, Zur Dogmengeschichte des Semipelagianismus, III (Munster, 1900); FICKER, Zur Wurdigung des Vita Fulgentii (Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch., 1900, 9); HELM identifies St. Fulgentius with the grammarian Fabius Furius Fulgentius Planciades (Rhein. Mus. Philol., 1897, 177; Philologus, 1897, 253; see TEUFFEL-SCHWABE, Gesch. der rom. Lit., 5th ed., pp. 1238 sqq.) On the collection of 80 spurious sermons appended to St. Fulgentius's works (first publ. by Raynaldus, Lyons, 1652) see G. MORIN, Notes sur un MS. des homelies du Pseudo-Fulgence (in Revue Bened., April, 1909). The best edition of St. Fulgentius is that of DESPREZ (Paris, 1684), reprinted in Migne, P.L., LXV. Cf. BARDENHEWER, Patrology (tr., St. Louis, 1908).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Fulgentius Ferrandus

A canonist and theologian of the African Church in the first half of the sixth century. He was a deacon of Carthage and probably accompanied his master and patron, Fulgentius of Ruspe, to exile in Sardinia, when the bishops of the African Church were banished from their sees by the Arian King of the Vandals, Thrasamund. After the death of Thrasamund and the accession of Hilderic, in. 523, the exiles were permitted to return, and Fulgentius, although only a deacon, soon gained a position of great importance in the African Church. He was frequently consulted in regard to the complex theological problems of the time and was known as one of the most redoubtable champions of orthodoxy in Western Christendom. His works are mostly of a doctrinal character. He defended the Trinitarian doctrines against the Arians and dealt besides with the question of the two natures in Christ, with baptism, and with the Eucharist. He drew up a "Breviatio Canonum Ecclesiasticorum" in which he summarized in two hundred and thirty-two canons the teaching of the earliest councils, Nicaea, Laodicea, Sardica, etc., concerning the manner of life of bishops, priests, deacons and other ecclesiastics, and of the conduct to be observed towards Jews, heathens and heretics. He also wrote at the request of the Comes Reginus (who was probably military governor of North Africa) a treatise on the Christian rule of life for soldiers, in which he laid down seven rules which he explained and inculcated, and in which he gave evidence of his piety and practical wisdom. Through no desire of his own, he was forced to take an active part in the controversy brought about through the condemnation of the "Three Chapters" by the Emperor Justinian. At the request of Pope Vigilius the Roman deacons Pelagius and Anatolius submitted the questions involved in the emperor's censure of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, to their Carthaginian confrere, requesting him at the same time to lay the matter before the African bishops. Ferrandus at once declared himself in the most emphatic manner against yielding to the schemes of the emperor (Ep. vi, ad Pelagium et Anatolium diaconos). His decision met with the approval of Rusticus, Archbishop of Carthage, and was subsequently ratified by the council of African bishops over which Rusticus presided, and in which it was agreed to sever all relations with Pope Vigilius. Ferrandus died shortly after this event and before the Council of Constantinople was convened. (For his works see P.L., LXVII.)

AUDOLLENT, Carthage Romaine (Paris, 1901), 555 sqq., 743 sqq.; MAASSEN, Gesch. d. Quellen und Litt. des kanon. Rechts (Graz, 1870), I, 799-802; BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br.; St. Louis, 1908), 618.

PATRICK J. HEALY

Lady Georgiana Charlotte Fullerton

Novelist; born 23 September, 1812, in Staffordshire, died 19 January, 1885, at Bournemouth. She was the youngest daughter of Lord Granville Leveson Gower (afterwards first Earl Granville) and Lady Harriet Elizabeth Cavendish, second daughter of the fifth Duke of Devonshire. She was chiefly brought up in Paris, her father having been appointed English ambassador there when she was twelve years old. Her mother, a member of the Anglican Church, was a woman of deep religious feeling and Lady Georgiana was trained to devotion. In 1833 she married in Paris an attaché of the embassy Alexander George Fullerton, who was of good Irish birth and had previously been in the Guards. In 1841, when Lord Granville retired from the embassy, Lady Georgiana and her husband traveled for some time in France, Germany, and Italy. Two years later, Mr. Fullerton was received into the Church, after long and thoughtful study of the religious questions involved in this step. In 1844 his wife published her first book "Ellen Middleton", a tragic novel, of some power and showing markedly "High Anglican" religious views, so that Lord Brougham pronounced it "rank Popery". It was well received, and was criticized by Mr. Gladstone in "The English Review". Two years after, in 1846, the author placed herself under the instruction of Father Brownhill, S. J., and was received by him into the Church on Passion Sunday. In 1847 she published her second book, "Grantley Manor", which is largely a study of character, and is usually considered an advance, from a literary point of view, upon the first. There was then a pause in her published work, which was continued, in 1852, with the story of "Lady Bird". In 1855 her only son died, a loss she never quite recovered from, and henceforth she devoted herself to works of charity. In 1856 she joined the Third Order of St. Francis. She and her husband eventually settled in London and her literary work became a large part of her life. She not only wrote novels, but a good deal of biography, some poetry, and made translations from French and Italian. All her books have distinction and charm. Some of her chief works are: "Ellen Middleton" (London, 1884), "Grantley Manor" (London, 1854); "Lady Bird" (London, 1865); "La Comtesse de Bonneval", written in French (Paris, 1857); the same translated into English (London, 1858), "Laurentia", a tale of Japan (London, 1904); "Constance Sherwood" (Edinburgh and London, 1908), "Seven Stories" (London, 1896).

LEE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; CRAVEN, Lady G. Fullerton, sa vie et ses aeuvres (Paris, 1888), English version by COLERIDGE (London, 1888); YONGE, Women Novelists of Queen Victoria's Reign (London, 1897); The Inner Life of Lady G. Fullerton (London, 1899).

KATE M. WARREN

Bartolommeo Fumo

A theologian, b. at Villon near Piacenza; d. 1545. At an early age he entered the the Dominican Order and made great progress in all the ecclesiastical sciences, but especially in canon law. He was distinguished as an inquisitor at Piacenza, but is best known for his work, "Summa casuum conscientiae, aurea armilla dicta". This work, which was dedicated to Bishop Catelan of Piacenza, went through many editions, the two most important and best known being those of Antwerp (1591) and Lyons (1594). It was held in high esteem by all the canonists of the time, especially because it contained, in brief and compendious form, a digest of all similar explanations since the thirteenth century. In one or two places, by a series of clean cut sentences, he refutes all the errors of probabilism. The authorship of the work has been disputed by one or two, but without reason. He is also the author of "Expositio compendiosa in epistolas in Pauli et canonicas", and book entitled, "Poemata qaedam". His first work, "Philothea, opus immortalis animi dignitatem continens", was dedicated to Catalan before he became bishop.

H.J. SMITH

Funchal

(FUNCHALENSIS.)

Diocese in the Madeira Islands. Both in neo-Latin and in Portuguese the name of the town signifies "fennel" (Latin foenicularium). Madeira, the Purpuraria of the Romans, situated in the extreme west of the ancient world, about 440 miles from the coast of Morocco, was discovered in 1344 by the famous Bristol lovers (Amantes de Bristol), Anna Dorset and Robert O'Machin; later it was abandoned. In 1419 Joan Gonçales and Tristan Vaz took possession of the island. In 1445 were first planted the vines (brought from Crete) that have since rendered Madeira so famous. The Christian inhabitants were subject at first to the bishop of Tangier, until Leo X (16 June, 1514) made Funchal an episcopal see. In the interest of the vast territories in Africa and Asia then subject to Portugal, Clement VII (8 July, 1539) raised Funchal to archiepiscopal rank, and gave it for suffragans Angra, Cabo Verde, Goa, and Santo Thomé. In 1551, however; it was reduced to simple episcopal rank, and 1570 was made a suffragan of Lisbon, which it is to be present.

Funchal is delightfully situated on the south side of the the Madeira Islands, and was therefore the first halting place for Portuguese and Spanish ships on their way to the New World. Owing to this natural advantage the island soon became a great centre of wealth and foreign trade, likewise an important centre for the spread of the gospel whose missionaries found the islands convenient as a resting-place going and coming. Funchal was once to the Portuguese what Gibraltar, St. Helena, and Malta now are to the English. Therefore they garrisoned the city, though naturally defended by its rugged cliffs, and built there four impregnable fortresses. Its churches and monasteries no longer exhibit their former architectural splendour, though, as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century, the lintels and jambs of the windows in many houses were of massive silver, and the church vessels of solid gold (chalices, pyres, monstrances) were thickly studded with pearls, diamonds, and other precious stones. Funchal has long been a favourite resort of invalids, especially those suffering from diseases of the lungs. Its white villas and editices, embowered in rich tropical vegetation, charm the traveller as he approaches from the sea. The roads and streets are quite steep and the usual means of transportation is by ox-sled. The population of the city is (1909) about 20,000. According to the "Annuaire Pontifical" for 1906, the diocese contains about 150,000 Catholics, with 50 parish churches, 80 public and two conventual chapels, all ministered to by 93 priests.

F. FITA

Fundamental Articles

This term was employed by Protestant theologians to distinguish the essential parts of the Christian faith from those non-essential doctrines, which, as they believed, individual chuches might accept or reject without forfeiting their claim to rank as parts of the Church universal. During the seventeenth century, the view that doctrines might be thus distinguished into two classes was widely current in the verious reformed bodies; and several well-known divines endeavoured to determine the principle of the division. In some cases their aim was mainly practical. They hoped in this way to find a dogmatic basis for union between the separated churches. More often, however, the system was used controversially to defend the position of the Protestant bodies against the arguments of Catholics.

The first to advance the theory seems to have been George Cassander (1513-66), a Catholic by religion, but apparently little versed in theology. In his work "De officio pii ac publicae tranquilitatis vere amantis viri in hoc religionis dissidio" (1561), he maintained that in the articles of the Apostles' Creed we have the true foundations of the Faith; and that those who accept these doctrines, and have no desire to sever themselves from the rest of Christendom are part of the true Church. He believed that thus it might be possible to find a means of reuniting Catholics, Greeks, and Protestants. But the proposal met with no favour on either side. The Louvain professors, Hesselius and Ravesteyn, showed that the theory was irreconcilable with Catholic theology and Calvin no less vehemently repudiated a system so little hostile to Rome. Among Protestants, however, the view soon reappeared. It seemed to afford them some means of reply to two objections which they were constantly called on to meet. When Catholics told them that their total inability to agree amongst themselves was itself a proof that their system was a false one, they could answer that though differing as to non-essentials they were agreed on fundamentals. And when asked how it could be maintained that the whole Christian world had for centuries been sunk in error, they replied that since these errors had not destroyed the fundamentals of the faith, salvation was possible even before the gospel had been preached. It is asserted that the first to take up this standpoint was Antonio de Dominis, the apostate Archbishop of Spalatro, who, during the reign of James I, sojourned some years in England. Whether this was so or not, it is certain that from this period the distinction becomes a recognized feature in English Protestant polemics, while on the other hand Catholic writers are at pains to show its worthlessness. It fills an important place in the controversy between Father Edward Knott, S.J., and the Laudian divine, Christopher Potter. At this time, the term fundamentals was understood to signify those doctrines an explicit belief in which is necessary to salvation. Thus, Potter in his "Want of Charity justly charged on all such Romanists as dare affirm that Protestancy destroyeth Salvation" (1633) says: "By Fundamental doctrines we mean such Catholique verities as are to be distinctly believed by every Christian that shall be saved" (p. 211). Knott had no difficulty in showing how hopelessly discrepant were the views of the more eminent Protestants as to what was fundamental. His attack forced his opponents to change their ground. Chillingworth, who replied to him in the notable book, "The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation" (1637), while defining fundamental articles in a manner similar to Potter (op. cit., c. iii.20), nevertheless conceded that it was impossible to draw up any list of fundamental doctrines. He urged indeed that this mattered little, since the Bible constitutes the religion of Protestants, and he who accepts the Bible knows that he has accepted all the essentials of the Faith (op. cit., c. iii, n. 59). Yet it is plain that if we do not know which doctrines are fundamental, salvation cannot be conditional on the explicit acceptance of these particular truths.

The doctrine of fundamentals was destined to become notable not merely in England, but in Germany and France also. In Germany if assumed prominence in connection with the Syncretist dispute. The founder of the Syncretist school was the eminent Lutheran theologian, George Calixt (1586-1656). A man of wide culture and pacific disposition, he desired to effect a reconciliation between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists. In a treatise entitled "Desiderium et studium concordiae ecclesiasticae" (1650), he argued that the Apostles' Creed, which each of these three religions accepted, contained the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and that the points on which they were at variance were no insuperable bar to union. These differences, he held, might be composed, if it were agreed to accept as revealed truth all that is contained in Scripture, and further all that is taught by the Fathers of the first five centuries. This eirenicon brought down upon him the most vehement attacks from the extreme party of his coreligionists, above all from Calovius, the representative of rigid Lutheranism. The keenest interest was aroused in the question, and on both sides it was warmly debated. The effort, though well meant, proved quite abortive.

The most famous by far of the controversies on this subject, however, was that between Bossuet and the Calvinist Jurieu. Jurieu's book, "Le Vray Système de l'Eglise" (1686), marks a distinct stage in the development of Protestant theology; while the work in which Bossuet replied to him was one of the most effective attacks ever levelled against Protestantism and its system. "Le Vray Systeme" was an attempt to demonstrate the right of the French Protestants to rank as members of the Church Universal. With this aim Jurieu propounded an entirely novel theory regarding the Church's essential constitution. According to him all sects without exception are members of Body of Christ. For this nothing is necessary but "to belong to a general confederation, to confess Jesus Christ as Son of God, as Saviour of the world, and as Messias; and to receive the Old and New Testaments as the rule and Law of Christians", (Système, p. 53).

Yet among the various portions of the Church we must, he tells us, distinguish four classes: (1) the sects which have retained all the truths taught in the Scriptures; (2) those which, while retaining the more important truths, have mingled with them superstitions and errors, (3) those which have retained the fundamental truths, but have added doctrines which are incompatible with them; and (4) those which have set the fundamental verities altogether aside. This last class are dead members of the mystical body (ibid., p. 52). Those who have retained the fundamental articles of the faith are, one and all, living parts of the Church. When he comes to define precisely which in doctrines are, and which are not, fundamental, Jurieu bids us fall back on the rule of Vincent of Lérins: Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. Wherever all bodies of Christians still existing, and possessing some importance in the world, agree in accepting a dogma, we have, in that agreement, a criterion which may be considered infallible. Among truths so guaranteed are, e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the Redemption, the satisfaction, original sin, creation, grace, the immortality of the soul, the eternity of punishment (ibid, 236-237). This work was followed, on 1688, by another entitled "Traité de l'unité de l'Eglise et des articles fondamentaux", written in reply to Nicole's criticisms. In the same year appeared Bossuet's famous "Histoire des Variations des Eglises protestantes". The Bishop of Meaux pointed out that this was the third different theory of the Church advanced by Protestant theologians to defend their position. The first reformers had accepted the Scriptural doctrine of an indefectible visible Church. When it was demonstrated that this doctrine was totally incompatible with their denunciation of pre-reformation Christianity, their successors took refuge in the theory of an invisible Church. It had been made patent that this was contrary to the express words of Scripture; and their controversialists had, in consequence, been compelled to look for a new' position. This Jurieu had provided in his theory of a Church founded upon fundamental articles. Bossuet's polemic was the death-blow of the new theory. Jurieu, it is true, replied; but only involved himself in yet farther difficulties. He argued against the main thesis of the "variations" by contending that changes of dogma had been characteristic of the Christian Church from its earliest days.

Bossuet, in his "Avertissement aux Protestants sur les lettres de M. Jurieu", was not slow in pointing out that if this were true, then the principle, Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus--according to Jurieu the criterion of a fundamental article--had ceased to possess the smallest value. (Avertissement, I, n. 22.)

In regard to the relation of the fundamental doctrines to salvation, Jurieu is in agreement with the English divines already quoted. "By fundamental points", he says, "we understand certain general principles of the Christian religion, a distinct faith and belief in which are necessary to salvation" (Traité, p. 495). Precisely the same view is expressed by Locke in his "Reasonableness of Christianity". After enumerating what he regards as the fundamental articles of faith, he says: "An explicit belief of these is absolutely required of all those to whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached, and salvation through his name proposed" (Works, ed., 1740, I, 583). Waterland's "Discourse of Fundamentals" should perhaps be mentioned, since it is the only work by an Anglican divine explicitly devoted to this subject. Its professed aim is to determine a basis for intercommunion among various Christian bodies. But the whole, treatment is quite academic. It had become patent how impossible was the task of determining which, articles were fundamental. No one could decide what should be the principle of selection.

Waterland enumerates no less than ten different views on this point, which he rejects as inadequate. "We have", he says, "almost as many different rules for determinating fundamentals as there are different sects or parties." Needless to say, his own principle has as little authority as those which he rejects. The theory had, in fact, been weighed and found wanting. It afforded neither a basis for reunion nor a tenable doctrine as to the constitution of the Church. From this time it appears to have ceased to occupy the attention of Protestant writers. Doubtless the ideas which the theory embodies still have a wide range. There are numbers to-day who still think that while the differences between the various bodies of Christians are unessential, there is a residuum of fundamental truth common to all the principal groups of believers. From time to time, this view has taken effect in efforts after partial reunion among certain of the sects. These events, however, fall outside our scope: for they stand in no historic connection with that doctrine of fundamental articles, which in the seventeenth century filled so important a place in Protestant theology.

It remains briefly to notice the manner in which the theory conflicts wlth Catholic dogma. For a formal refutation the reader is referred to those articles in which the Catholic doctrines in question are expressly treated.

(1) In the first place the theory is repugnant to the nature of Christian faith as understood by the Church. According to her teaching, the essential note of this faith lies in the complete and unhesitating acceptance of the whole depositum on the ground that it is the revealed word of God. The conscious rejection of a single article of this depoist is sufficient to render a man guilty of heresy. The question is not as to the relative importance of the ariticle in question but solely as to whether it has been revealed by God to man. This is clearly put by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica II-II:5:3: "In a heretic who rejects a single article of the faith, there remains the virtue of faith whether as united with charity [formata], or as severed from charity [informis]. . . The formal object of faith is the Supreme Truth in so far as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and in that doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the Supreme Truth. Hence if anyone does not hold to the doctrine of the Church as to an infallible and divine rule, . . . he does not possess the virtue of faith." The Church does not deny that certain truths are of more vital moment than others. There are some as to which it is important that all the faithful should possess explicit knowledge. In regard to others explicit knowledge is not necessary. But it denies empatically that any Christian may reject or call in question any truth, small or great, revealed by God. On the other hand the system of Fundamental Artcles, in each and all of its forms, involved that whilesome truths are of such importance that they must of necessity be held, there are others of less importance which an individual Christian or body of Christians may freely deny without forfeiture of grace.

(2) No less complete is the disagreement as to what is requisite in order that a body of Christians may be a part of the true Church of Christ. In the system under review it is maintained that all the sects which accept the Fundamental articles of the faith are partakers in this privilege. The Catholic Church knows of one and only one test to determine this question of membership in Christ's body. This test does not lie in the acceptance of this or that particular doctrine, but in communion with the Apostolic hierarchy. Such is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers from earliest times. By way of illustration the words of Saint Irenaeus may here be cited: "They who are in the Church", he writes, "must yield obedience to the presbyters, who have the succession from the Apostles, and who with the succession of episcopate have received . . . the sure gift of truth. Let them hold in suspicion those who sever themselves from the succession. These have all of them fallen from the truth" (Adv. Haer., IV, xxvi, 2). The theory which finds the one requisite in the acceptance of a series of fundamental articles is a novelty without a vestige of support in Christian antiquity.

(3) It is manifest that the theory is destructive of that unity in faith and in corporate communion, which Christ Himself declared should for ever be the guarantee of the Divine origin of the Church (John, xvii, 21), and which the Catholic Church has ever exemplified and taught. Jurieu, it may be noted, frankly owned that on his theory the separate sects might be in a position of mutual excommunication, and yet remain members of the Church.

To sum up: the system of fundamental articles is repugnant to the religion of Christ. It is a stage in the disintegration of religion, consequent on the admission of the principle of private judgment in matters of faith; and it is a stage which is necessarily destined to lead on to the complete rejection of revealed truth.

G.H. JOYCE

Funeral Dues

The canonical perquisites of a parish priest receivable on the occasion of the funeral of any of his parishioners. This right of the parish priest is twofold: first, the right to an offering when a parishioner is buried within the limits of the parish to which he belonged, second, the right to a fourth (quarta funeralis) of the dues when a parishioner is buried outside the limits of the parish (The ancient episcopal quarta funeralis has fallen into desuetude.) The right to the quarta funeralis is founded on the obligations of a parish priest to his parishioners during life, and the correlative duties of those to whose care he ministers; since the labourer is worthy of his hire, it is but just that should the parishioner elect to be buried in a parish other than that to which he canonically belongs, the parish priest should not altogether be deprived of emolument for his past services. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, cap. xiii) gives the "fourth portion" the name of "quarta funeralium"; but other designations were common in earlier times, e.g. "portio canonica" (canonical portion), "quarta portio" (fourth share), "justitia" (justice) since it was considered a just reward for the work of a parish priest in his care of souls. That these funeral dues are not of recent origin is clear from ancient ecclesiastical enactments (Cap. Cum Quis, II, De sepulchretis, in VI). Leo III (Nos instituta) refers to this ancient discipline of the Church: "Do not break away from the rules which our forefathers have laid down for us". Still earlier, in 680, in the Anglo- Saxon Church could legally claim; and among them was the payment called "soul-shot". This payment was the mortuary charge ordered to be reserved for the dead, while the grave was yet open, or to be reserved for the church to which the deceased belonged if his body were buried in any place out of his "shriftshire" i.e. his proper parish (Lingard, "Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church", I, iv).

As a price for burial, the parish priest can demand nothing without incurring the suspicion of simony. Burial is a spiritual right belonging to the faithful; and the parish priest, in virtue of his office, is bound to perform this duty for his parishioners. Nevertheless, if there is a legitimate custom which allows offerings to be made, or if the bishop should have established a fixed scale of offerings, the parish priest may demand such fees provided he in no way incurs suspicion of extortion. Also, in case of funerals with more than the ordinary burial service, a demand for payment for extra labour or to cover expenses is quite in accordance with canon law. The Roman Ritual (tit. vi, De exsequiis, n. 6) lays down that the amount to be charged for funeral services is to be fixed by the bishop; it also insists that in all cases of the poor who die with little or no property the parish priest is bound to bury them without charge (ibid., n. 7). This is in keeping with the immemorial affection of the Church for the poor (Tert., "Apol.", xxxix; Ambrose, "De off.", II, cxlii; Schultze "De Christ. veter. rebus sepulchr.", Gotha, 1879, 24). Emperor Constantine created at Constantinople a special association for the burial of the poor (Lex, "Begräbnissrecht", 208). The medieval Church granted indulgences for the burial of the poor, and her synods and bishops frequently inculcated the same as a work of mercy. While the parish priest is not bound to offer Mass on that occasion, he is warrnly recommended to do so by Benedict XIV (Instr. 36) and other ecclesiastical authorities (Lex, op. cit., 209-11).

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Decret. de obser. et evit. in celeb. Missae) in very clear words points out the duty of the bishops to determine specifically all offerings on the occasion of the Holy Sacrifice, so that there may be no opportunity for suspecting simony on the part of any ecclesiastic. The bishop is authorized to prescribe, in regard to funerals, what portion should belong to the parish priest and to others assisting at the altar; how much should be given to those who accompany the body to the grave; to those who toll the bells; Iikewise the number and weight of the candles used during the burial service, the remuneration for the use of funeral ornaments, etc. If the parishioner is buried outside his parish, the parish priest, as has been already said, is entitled to a fourth of the burial fees. This fourth has to be paid by the church of the parish in which the burial takes place, and it includes that proportion of the emoluments that come to the church by reason of the funeral up to the thirtieth day after the funeral. In the case of the funeral of a canon the "quarta funeralis" is due, not to the parish priest of the cathedral, but to the parish priest of the deceased canon's domicile. As a matter of practice at the present day there are many churches exempt from the payment of the quarta funeralis, such exemption being obtained either by pontifical privilege, custom, or prescription. Many monasteries, and indeed whole orders, have been exempted by pontifical privilege (St. Pius V, Decet Romanum, 20 May, 1567; Paul V, Decet Romanum, 20 Aug. 1605). Benedict XIII, in 1725, annulled all exemptions, so far as Italy and the adjacent islands were concerned. By custom or prescription the obligation of paying the quarta funeralis has been done away with in most places, although it still exists, for instance, in the Diocese of Paris (France). With regard to the fees for burial in our own time, there is no customary uniform fee, and the enactments of provincial synods contain nothing very definite on the matter. Generally speaking, if a church has a cemetery attached a scale of fees is drawn up and approved by the bishop for that church the charges varying according to the degree of solemnity with which the funeral is carried out. In cemeteries not attached to a church, and which are whole Catholic, the administrators pay a fixed fee for each funeral, or more commonly a yearly stipend to the cemetery chaplain. Where the cemetery is controlled by secular authority, the funeral fees are arranged for and paid by the local authority but the amount of the fee varies according to the locality.

DAVID DUNFORD

Funeral Pall

A black cloth usually spread over the coffin while the obsequies are performed for a deceased person. It generally has a white cross worked through its entire length and width. The Roman Ritual does not prescribe its use in the burial of a priest or layman, but does so for the absolution given after a requiem when the body is not present. Still the Congregation of Sacred Rites supposes its existence, since it forbids ecclesiastics, especially in sacred vestments, to act as pall-bearers for a deceased priest (3110, 15). It also forbids the use of a white transparent pall fringed with gold in the funeral of canons (3248, 3). The "Ceremoniale Episcoporum" orders a black covering on the bed of state for a deceased bishop. It was once customary specially to invite persons to carry the pall, or, at least, to touch its borders during the procession. These pall-bearers frequently had the palls made of very costly materials and these were afterwards made into sacred vestments. Formerly dalmatics or even coverings taken from the altar were used as a pall for a deceased pope, but, on account of abuses that crept in, this practice was suppressed. In the Council of Auxerre (578, can. xii) and in the statutes of St. Boniface the pall hiding the body was forbidden.

In the English Church the funeral pall was regularly employed. Thus we read that, at the funeral of Richard Kellowe, Bishop of Durham (d. 1316), Thomas Count of Lancaster offered three red palls bearing the coat of arms of the deceased prelate. On the same occasion Edward II of England sent palls of gold cloth. At the burial of Arthur, son of Henry VII, Lord Powys laid a rich cloth of gold on the body. Similar rich palls were used in the obsequies of Henry VII and of Queen Mary.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Diocese of Fünfkirchen

(Hungarian PÉCS, QUINQUE ECCLESIENSIS)

Located in Hungary, in the ecclesiastical province of Gran. Christianity was introduced into this part of the ancient province of Pannonia (called Valeria since the time of Diocletian) before the fall of the Roman Empire. In Fünfkirchen itself, formerly the Roman colony of Sopianœ, there has been found an underground sepulchral chamber dating from early Christian times; it is still preserved, and contains religious paintings belonging to the second half of the fourth century (Henszlmann, "Die altchristliche Grabkammer in Fünfkirchen" in "Mitteilungen der Zentralkommission", Vienna, 1873, 57 sq. de Rossi, "Bullettino di arch. crist.", 1874, 150-152). It is probable that even at this early day a house of Christian worship existed where the cathedral now stands. During the "migration of the nations", city and country were devastated; in the ninth century, this territory formed part of the kingdom of the Christian Slavic prince Privina, and Archbishop Liupramm of Salzburg (836-859) consecrated the church of St. Peter in the city even then called "Ad quinque Basilicas" because of its five churches. By King Stephen I of Hungary Fünfkirchen was made a bishopric in the year 1009. The first bishop was the Frank, Bonipert, a Benedictine monk. His successor, Maurus (1036-1070), erected a cathedral, the original foundations of which still stand, on the site of the old church of St. Peter (restored, 1877-1896). Maurus is the first ecclesiastical writer in the kingdom of Hungary, and is honoured as a saint in this diocese, as well as by the Benedictines.

Of the succeeding bishops, the following are worthy of mention: Calanus (1188-1218), who, on account of his services in defending the Church against the Patarini, was permitted by Clement III to wear the pallium and to have the cross borne before him, a custom which led to many difficulties with the Archbishops of Gran, but was nevertheless confirmed by Benedict XIV (1754); Wilhelm (1360-1374), during whose episcopate the cathedral school was raised to the rank of a university (1367), which flourished for a time, but which ceased to exist after the defeat in battle of Louis II by Solyman I in 1526; Anton Vrancies (1553-1557) and Georg Draskovich (1557-1563) who worked zealously for the reform of the religious life and were elevated to the cardinalate. After the conquest of the city by the Turks in 1543, the cathedral was transformed into a mosque, and it was only in 1687, after the expulsion of the Turks, that it was again opened for Christian worship. Under Bishops Franz Nesselrode (1703-1732) and Georg Girk (1853-1868), diocesan synods were held. Bishop Ignatius von Szepesy (1828-1838) founded a lyceum with a faculty of theology and law. A restoration of the cathedral in approved style was made by Ferdinand Dulánszky. The cathedral chapter numbers ten canons, six honorary canons and two prebendaries. The diocese is divided into two archdiaconates and twenty-two vice-diaconates; it embraces 178 parishes, with 258 dependent churches and stations, and six curacies. Of the parishes 33 are German, 54 Magyar and the rest composed of mixed nationalities. The number of Catholics in the diocese amounted in 1906 to 503,981. In the same year, there were 306 secular priests and 40 religious. The following orders of men exist in the diocese: Cistercians (1 monastery, with a college); Franciscans (7 monasteries); Brothers of Mercy (1 convent); Orders and congregations of women: Canonesses of Our Lady (1 convent); Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (11 convents); Sisters of Providence, of the Holy Redeemer, of the Holy Cross (1 convent each). The territory of the diocese embraces the counties of Baranya and Tolna, and part of the counties of Somogy and Veröcze.

KOLLAR, Historia episcopatus Quinqueecclesiensis, 7 vols. (Budapest, 1782-1812); GERECZE, Der Dom zu Fünfkirchen (Fünfkirchen, 1894); Die katholische Kirche unserer Zeit (Munich, 1900), II, 590-593.

J. P. KIRSCH.

Franz Xaver von Funk

Church historian, b. in the small market town of Abtsgemünd in Würtemberg, 12 October, 1840; d. at Tübingen, 24 February, 1907.

The son of an inn-keeper, Franz first attended the gymnasium at Ellwagen, and, on finishing his course of secondary studies, proceeded in 1859 to the University of Tübingen. Residing at the theological house of studies called Wilhelmsstift he studied philosophy and theology, and also found time to attend courses in classical philology and political economy with such profit that in 1862 he gained the prize offered by the faculty of political science for the best essay on the theme: "Was verstand man in 18. Jahrhundert unter Polizei?" (What signification had the word police in the 18th century?). Some of his earlier publications treated subjects connected with political economy. Having received his doctorate of philosophy in 1863, he devoted a year in the ecclesiastical seminary to moral theology and preparation for the priesthood. He was ordained at Rottenburg, 10 August, 1864, and his first work was in the care of souls; he felt, however, that the whole bent of his mind lay in the direction of intellectual labour. In October, 1865, he obtained permission to proceed to Paris to pursue further the study of political economy; the journey through France and his residence at Paris acted as a great mental stimulus. On his return in 1866, he was appointed tutor at the Wilhelmsstift, where his duty was to direct the personal studies and preparation for examinations of the theological students. When Hefele, then professor of church history at Tübingen, was called to Rome in 1868 as consultor during the preparation for the Vatican Council, Funk acted as substitute. Hefele did not return to his chair, being appointed Bishop of Rottenburg on 17 June, 1869, and Funk was appointed his successor. In 1870 Funk was named extraordinary, and in 1875 ordinary professor of church history, patrology, and Christian archæology, an office which he filled till his death.

His life was henceforth entirely devoted to his professorial duties and historical researches, especially to the various branches of the history of the early Church. His first important publications belong to the sphere of political science and the history of economics, and include the two treatises, "Zins und Wucher, eine moraltheologische Abhandlung" (Tübingen, 1878). Other articles on the same subject written by his either during this or a later period are: "Klemens von Alexandrien über Familie und Eigentum" ["Theologische Quartalschrift" (1871), 427-449; reprinted in "Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen", II, 45 sqq.]; "Handel und Gewerbe im christlichen Altertum" [in "Theol. Quartalschrift" (1876); reprinted in "Kirchengesch. Abhand. u. Untersuch.", II, 60 sqq.]; "Ueber Reichtum und Handel in christlichen Altertum" [Ibid., III, 150 sqq., first published in "Histor.-politische Blätter" (1902), II]. Funk's professorial duties and his early study of classical philology soon led him into the province of early Christian literature and church history, and in these departments he accomplished his most important work as a scholar. In the former department his task consisted principally in the issuing of new editions of texts, prepared in accordance with the rules of historical and textual criticism. His predecessor Hefele had issued a scholarly edition of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, "Opera patrum apostolicorum", but the last edition was that of 1855, and the discovery of important manuscripts rendered a new edition necessary. Funk undertook the task and the "Opera patrum apostolicorum" appeared in two volulmes (Tübingen, 1878-1881), the first containing the authentic and the second the apocryphal writings. After the discovery of the Didache, a new edition of the first volume was issued in 1887; a fresh edition (the second) of the whole work appeared in 1901. The "Sammlung von Quellenschriften" (Tübingen, 1901; 2nd ed., 1906) contains a synopsis with the text of the authentic writings. Funk also published separately the Didache and certain of the early writings connected with this work ("Doctrina XII apostolorum", "Canones apostolorum ecclesiastici ac reliquæ doctrinæ de duabus viis expositiones veteres", Tübingen, 1887). His studies of the "Apostolic Constitutions" led Funk to the conviction that the existing editions of the "Constitutiones apostolicæ" and of the Syrian "Didascalia apostolorum" were unsatisfactory. He devoted many years to the preparation of a new edition, which was given to the public in 1905 ("Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum", ed. F. X. von Funk, 2 vols., Paderborn, 1905), and was received with the greatest commendation by the learned world. He also published three works connected with early Christian literature. In the treatise "Die Echtheit der Ignatianischen Briefe" (Tübingen, 1883), he successfully refuted the attacks made on these important sub-apostolic writings, and demonstrated conclusively the authorship of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

For many years his attention was almost exclusively devoted to a group of writings, which constitute the principal source of information as to early Christian liturgy and discipline, namely the Didache, the Didascalia, the Apostolic Constitutions, the "Canones Hippolyti", the Egyptian Church Order, and the "Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi" discovered by Rahmani. In opposition to the somewhat different views of other investigators, Funk sought to establish the connexion between these writings, and from this the date of their origin. The two works, which Funk devoted to this subject, are: "Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen" (Tübingen, 1891), and "Das Testament unseres Herrn und die verwandten Schriften" (Mainz, 1901). Similar investigations in the field of literary history and numerous questions touching on the liturgy, discipline and religious life of early Christian times form the subject of the numerous articles which Funk contributed to various periodicals during the many years of his academic activity. Most of these articles were published in the "Tübinger theologische Quartalschrift", the "Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft", the "Historisch-politische Blätter" or in the "Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique", and the majority are included, in more or less revised form, in the collection: "Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen" (3 vols., Paderborn, 1897, 1899, 1907). Among the most important of these writings are those dealing with the above-mentioned pseudo-Apostolic works and their relations to one another ("Abhandlungen", II, 108 sqq., 136 sqq., 359 sqq., III, 64 sqq., 218 sqq., 275 sqq., 359 sqq., 362 sqq., 381 sqq.); the early Christian penitential discipline and the catechumenate (Ibid., I, 155 sqq., 182 sqq., 209 sqq.; III, 42 sqq., 57 sqq.); celibacy of the clerics in major orders (Ibid., I, 121 sqq.); the Agapæ and the Eucharistic Sacrifice (Ibid., I, 278, 293 sqq., III, 1 sqq., 85 sqq., 134 sqq.). One subject to which he often returned and which involved him in a long controversy with other scholars, especially with Father Kneller, S. J., was the convocation and papal ratification of the œcumenical synods of the early ages [Abhandlungen, I, 39 sqq., 87 sqq., 498 sqq., III, 143 sqq., 406 sqq.; Kneller returned to the subject again in the "Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie" (1908), 75-99]. Of the various contributions to later Church history, which flowed from Funk's industrious pen, may be mentioned the "Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der altbritischen Kirche" (Abhand., I, 421 sqq.), "Gerson und Gersen" (Ibid., II, 473 sqq.), "Der Verfasser der Nachfolge Christe" (Ibid., II, 408 sqq.), "Zur Galilei-Frage" (Ibid., II, 444 sqq.). Funk was an industrious contributor to the second edition of Herder's "Kirchenlexikon", in which are found no less than 136 articles, some of considerable length, from his pen. For Kraus's "Real-Encyclopädie der christlichen Altertümer" he also wrote several articles. The excellence of his "Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte", as a general church history, is universally recognized; the first edition appeared in 1886, the fifth in 1907, shortly before his death, the tireless worker being suddenly cut down in the midst of his labours by an apoplectic stroke. The Tübingen "Theologische Quartalschrift" for 1907 (p. 236 sqq.) contained a posthumous article of Funk's on the reputed writings of St. Hippolytus.

Among the Catholic historians whom Germany has produced in the last three decades Funk was undoubtedly the greatest authority and the chief historical writer on early Christian times. Clear and purely critical in method, his sole aim was the establishment of historical truth. His character was frank and conscientious; his life was blameless, as became a minister of God. As a controversalist he could be severe when an opponent allowed himself to be swayed by any other motive than the demonstration of exact truth. His method has created a school among the Catholic historians of Germany which has been a benefit to the advancement of earnest historical investigation and scholarly criticism.

      Bihlmeyer, François Xavier von Funck in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique (1907), 620-423 [sic].

J.P. Kirsch

Furness Abbey

Situated in the north of Lancashire about five miles from the town of Ulverston. Originally a Benedictine monastery of the Savigny Reform it afterwards became Cistercian. Vitalis, the founder of Savigny and the disciple of Robert d'Arbrissel, came to England in 1119, and Stephen, Count of Boulogne and afterwards King of England, offered him land at Tulketh on the Ribble, one mile below Preston. Accordingly, in 1124, Ewan d'Avranches, with a colony of monks, was sent from Savigny to establish the monastery at Tulketh. In 1127 Stephen gave to these monks his forest of Furness in Lancashire and thither they removed. This grant was most munificent, for it included large possessions in woods, pastures, fisheries, and mills, with a large share in the salt works and mines of the district. Development was so rapid that in 1134 a colony of monks was sent forth to establish Calder near the Scotch border. Besides Calder, Swyneshead and Rushin were also colonized, and from Calder the famous Abbey of Byland was founded. By the year 1148 the Cistercian Reform, under the leadership of St. Bernard, was everywhere attracting attention and all the Savigny monks, those of Furness included, became Cistercians. In 1249 the Cistercian General Chapter placed four Irish monasteries under the control of Furness, viz. Fermoy, Wethirlaghn, Inislounagh, and Corcumcrae. Through the foundation of Rushin there was frequent communication between Furness and the Isle of Man and more than one monk of Furness became Bishop of Man. This, no doubt, was due to the privilege held by the Abbey of Rushin of appointing the bishop, subject to the consent of the Manxmen. Nicholas de Meaux, a native of the Orkneys and once a canon of Wartre, was a monk at Meaux, a monk and Abbot of Furness, and finally Bishop of Man. Jocelin, a monk of Furness and afterwards of Iniscourcy, in Ireland, wrote the life of St. Patrick at the command of Thomas, Archbishop of Armagh; other works attributed to him are: "Book of British bishops"; "Life of St. Waldeve, Second abbot of Melrose"; "Life of St. Kentigern or Mungo". The names of thirty-two abbots of Furness are known, the last being Roger Pyle. In October, 1535, the royal commissioners visited the abbey; a little later the monks were accused of being implicated in the Pilgrimage of Grace and two of them were imprisoned at Lancaster. The final disruption came on 9 April, 1537, when the abbot, prior, and twenty-eight monks were forced to sign the deed of surrender. The site and lands were at first held by the Crown. Later they were assigned to the Earl of Salisbury and afterwards came into the possession of the Prestons of Preston Patrick. They were next acquired by Lord George Augustus Cavendish, and now belong to the Dukes of Devonshire. The buildings were renowned more for their grandeur than for their richness and beauty; portions of the ruins still remain to show this.

G.E. HIND

Furni

A titular see in Proconsular Africa, where two towns of this name are known to have existed. One discovered in the ruins of El-Msaadin, near Tebourba, had a bishop as early as the third century, Geminius Victor, who died shortly before St. Cyprian. Another bishop, Simeon, assisted at the Council of Carthage in 525. The second Furni was discovered at Henchir-Boudja about seven miles from Zama. A Donatist bishop of the see assisted at the synod held at Carthage in 411. The town was made famous by the courage of the martyr Mansuetus of Urusi, who was burned alive, according to Victor of Vita (Histor. persec. Vandal., I, 3) at the gate of Urusi, also known as the gate of Furni. In 305, during the same persecution the basilicas of Furni and Zama had been burned. At Henchir-Boudja may be seen the ruins of a Byzantine fortress.

S. VAILHÉ

John Furniss

A well-known children's missioner, born near Sheffield, England, 19 June, 1809; at Clapham, London, 16 September, 1865.

His father was a wealthy master-cutler. He was educated at Sedgley Park, Oscott, and Ushaw College, where he became a priest in 1834. He was resident priest at Doncaster for five years, but his health having given way he travelled during eight years through Europe and the East, rather as a pilgrim than a tourist. After his return home, 1847, he spent some time at Islington, London, working for the welfare of the waifs and strays, for "Suffer little children to come to me" was his motto then as in after years. He became a professed member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer at St. Trond, Belgium, 1851, and afterwards gave missions in England and Ireland; but from 1851 until his death he devoted himself wholly to giving missions to children. He was the founder of children's missions and "the children's Mass", and by his writings systematized the philosophy of religious training. These missions lasted sometimes three weeks, and were given not only to school-children, but to working boys and girls. His maxim was that "nothing so disgusted children as monotony", and therefore he had the prayers at Mass and the Rosary sung to simple airs, and his sermons seldom lasted more than twenty minutes. He entered fully into the mode of thought of the child-mind, and, speaking quietly but with great dramatic power from a platform, he always riveted their attention. He was a wonderful story-teller, seldom moving to laughter but often to tears. He spent his spare time writing books for children which, though written with the utmost simplicity of language, are models of good English. His chief works are "The Sunday-School Teacher" and "God and His creatures", which has been published in French. He wrote a scathing answer to an attack on his works by the "Saturday Review" which was then the great organ of unbelief in England. His writings were assailed as "infamous publications" by the rationalist historian Lecky in his "History of European Morals", chiefly on account of the somewhat lurid eschatology of the children's books. More than four millions of his booklets have been sold throughout English-speaking countries.

ALBERT BARRY

St. Fursey

An Abbot of Lagny, near Paris, d. 16 Jan., about 650. He was the son of Fintan, son of Finloga, prince of South Muster, and Gelgesia, daughter of Aedhfinn, prince of Hy-Briuin in Connaught. He was born probably amongst the Hy-Bruin, and was baptized by St. Brendan the Traveller, his father's uncle, who then ruled a monastery in the Island of Oirbsen, now called Inisquin in Lough Corrib. He was educated by St. Brendan's monks, and when of proper age he embraced the religious life in the same monastery under the Abbot St. Meldan, his "soul-friend" (anam-chura). His great sanctity was early discerned, and there is a legend that here, through his prayers, twin children of a chieftain related to King Brendinus were raised from the dead. After some years he founded a monastery at Rathmat on the shore of Lough Corrib which Colgan identifies as Killursa, in the deanery of Annadown. Aspirants came in numbers to place themselves under his rule, but he wished to secure also some of his relatives for the new monastery. For this purpose he set out with some monks for Munster, but on coming near his father's home he was seized with an apparently mortal illness. He fell into a trance from the ninth hour of the day to cock-crow, and while in this state was favoured with the first of the ecstatic visions which have rendered him famous in medieval literature.

In this vision were revealed to him the state of man in sin, the beauty of virtue. He heard the angelic choirs singing "the saints shall go from virtue to virtue, the God of Gods will appear in Sion". An injunction was laid on him by the two angels who restored him to the body to become a more zealous labour in the harvest of the Lord. Again on the third night following, the ecstasy was renewed. He was rapt aloft by three angels who contended six times with demons for his soul. He saw the fires of hell, the strife of demons, and then heard the angel hosts sing in four choirs "Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts". Among the spirits of the just made perfect he recognized Sts. Meldan and Beoan. They entertained him with much spiritual instruction concerning the duties of ecclesiastics and monks, the dreadful effects of pride and disobedience, the heinousness of spiritual and internal sins. They also predicted famine and pestilence. As he returned through the fire the demon hurled a tortured sinner at him, burning him, and the angel of the Lord said to him: "because thou didst receive the mantle of this man when dying in his sin the fire consuming him hath scarred thy body also." The body of Fursey bore the mark ever after. His brothers Foillan and Ultan then joined the community at Rathmat, but Fursey seems to have renounced the administration of that monastery and to have devoted himself to preaching throughout the land, frequetly exorcising evil spirits. Exactly twelve months afterwards he was favoured with a third vision. The angel remained with him a whole day, instructed him for his preaching, and prescribed for him twelve years of apostolic labour. This he faithfully fulfilled in Ireland, and then stripping himself of all earthly goods he retired for a time to a small island in the ocean. Then he went with his brothers and other monks, bringing with him the relics of Sts. Meldan and Beoan, through Britain (Wales) to East Anglia where he was honourably received by King Sigebert in 633. The latter gave him a tract of land at Cnobheresburg on which he built a monastery within the enclosure of a Roman fort--Burghcastle in Suffolk--surrounded by woods and overlooking the sea. Here he laboured for some years converting the Picts and Saxons. He also received King Sigebert into the religious state. Three miracles are recorded of his life in this monastery. Again he retired for one year to live with Ultan the life of an anchorite.

When war threatened East Anglia, Fursey, disbanding his monks until quieter times should come, sailed with his brothers and six other monks to Gaul. He arrived in Normandy in 648. Passing through Ponthieu, in a village near Mézerolles he found grief and lamendation on all sides, for the only son of Duke Hayson, the Lord of that country, lay dead. At the prayer of Fursey the boy was restored. Pursuing his journey to Neustria he cured many infirmities on the way, by miracles he converted a robber and his family, who attacked the monks in the wood near Corbie, and also the inhospitable worldling Ermelinda, who had refused to harbour the weary travellers. His fame preceded him to Péronne, where he was joyfully received by Erkinoald, and through his prayers obtained the reprive of six criminals. He was offered any site in the king's dominions for a monastery. He selected Latiniacum (Lagny), close to Chelles and about six miles from Paris, a spot beside the Marne, covered with shady woods and abounding in fruitful vineyards. Here he built his monastery and three chapels, one dedicated to the Saviour, one to St. Peter, and the third, an unpretending structure, afterwards dedicated to St. Fursey himself. Many of his countrymen were attracted to his rule at Lagny, among them Emilian, Eloquius, Mombulus, Adalgisius, Etto, Bertuin, Fredegand, Lactan, Malguil. Having certain premonitions of his end, he set out to visit his brothers Foillan and Ultan who had by this time recruited the scattered monks of Cnobheresburg and re-established that monastery but his last illness struck him down in the very village in which his prayer had restored Duke Haymon's son to life. The village was thence-forward called Forsheim, that is, the house of Fursey. In accordance with his own wish his remains were brought to Péronne, many prodigies attending their transmission, and deposited in the portico of the church of St. Peter to which he had consigned the relics of Sts. Meldan and Beoan. His body lay unburied there for thirty days pending the dedication of the church, visited by pilgrims from all parts, incorrupt and exhaling a sweet odour. It was then deposited near the altar. Four years later, on 9 February, the remains were translated with great solemnity by St. Eligius, Bishop of Noyon, and Cuthbert, Bishop of Cambrai, to a chapel specially built for them to the east of the altar. In the "Annals of the Four Masters", Péronne is called Cathair Fursa.

In art St. Fursey is represented with two oxen at his feet in commemoration of the prodigy by which, according to legend, Erkinoald's claim to his body was made good; or he is represented striking water from the soil at Lagny with the point of his staff; or beholding a vision of angels, or gazing at the flames of purgatory and hell. It is disputed whether he was a bishop; he may have been a chorepiscopus. A litany attributed to him is among the manuscripts in Trinity College Dublin. An Irish prophecy is attributed to him by Harris.

C. MULCAHY

Franz Friedrich Wilhelm von Fürstenberg

A statesman and educator, b. 7 August, 1729, at Herdringen in Westphalia; d. 16 September, 1810, at Münster. After receiving his early education from private tutors, and from the Jesuits at Cologne, he attended the university there, and at Salzburg, for the study of jurisprudence, which he completed at the Sapienza in Rome in 1753. In 1748 he had become canon at the cathedral of Münster and, later, also at Paderborn, and received minor orders and subdeaconship, though he had no intention of entering the priesthood. During the Seven Years War (1756-1763) he rendered signal services to his country as intermediary between the opposing camps, and through his influence warded off many a calamity from the city and principality of Münster.

After the death of Clemens August, Elector of Cologne and Prince-Bishop of Münster, on 6 February, 1761, it was chiefly through the influence of Fürstenberg that Maximilian Friedrich von Konigseck-Rothenfels, who had succeeded Clemens August at Cologne (6 April, 1761), was also elected Prince-Bishop of Münster in September, 1762. In recognition for these services the new prince-bishop entrusted Fürstenberg with the temporal and spiritual administration of the Prince-Bishopric of Münster. In 1762 he appointed him privy councillor and minister and, in 1770, vicar-general and curator of educational institutions. No better man could have been found to manage the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Prince-Bishopric of Münster which had suffered severely during the Seven Years War. Everybody was deep in debt and all trade and commerce was at a standstill. To restore prosperity to the people he improved agricultural conditions by dividing the land into marks, draining marshes and reclaiming much soil which hitherto had lain idle or in pasturage. He ameliorated the condition of the serfs and gave an impulse to the entire abolition of serfdom. In order to liquidate the public debt he placed a duty on such imported goods as could be easily dispensed with, and for a space of six years levied a moderate capitation tax from which the privileged estates were not exempted. He improved the military and the sanitary system, the former by founding a military academy at Münster and by introducing the "Landwehr", the latter by founding a college of medicine (1773) and inducing its director, the learned Christopher Ludwig Hoffmann, to draw up a code of medicinal regulations which was justly admired through Germany as a model of its kind.

The greatest achievement of Fürstenberg was his reform of the educational system. During the latter half of the eighteenth century the higher educational institutions of Germany had become veritable hotbeds of rationalism and irreligion, and not infrequently pronounced freethinkers were engaged to instruct the candidates for the priesthood. These conditions were not only permitted but often directly favoured by a few unworthy but influential prelates, among whom must be numbered Fürstenberg's superior Max Friedrich, the elector of Cologne and Prince-Bishop of Muster. To counteract this state of affairs, Fürstenberg planned a reform of the educational institutions in the Diocese of Münster. Luckily he was not hampered in this by his superior, the prince-bishop. He began his reform with the gyrnnasium, as the basis of the education of the future Catholic priest, whom he considered the chief leader and teacher of the people. After consulting with acknowledged educators, especially the Jesuits who then directed the gymnasium of Münster, he drew up a tentative plan for the gymnasium in 1770, which, after a few changes, was enforced by his famous school ordinance of 1776. According to the new plan great stress was laid on a thorough training in theoretical and practical Christianity, and a course in Catholic philosophy was added to the curriculum. In the same year he turned the recently suppressed convent of Ueberwasser at Münster into a seminary where the hitherto neglected candidates for the priesthood could receive the requisite moral training. Fürstenberg then directed his attention towards the completion of the new University of Münster (approved in 1773) where, as an effectual safeguard against rationalistic tendencies, he appointed to professorial duties only men who had been educated at the schools of his diocese and whom he knew to be firmly grounded in their Faith. To the most talented of these he offered every opportunity to prepare for professorial positions and even gave them the means to pursue special courses at foreign universities.

Fürstenberg's political activity came to a close in 1780, when Maximilian Franz, the brother of Emperor Joseph II of Austria, was elected coadjutor to Maximilian Friedrich as Archbishop of Cologne and Prince Bishop of Münster. Fürstenberg himself had aspired to this position and undoubtedly would have been elected if it had not been for the great influence of the Court of Vienna which favoured the election of Maximilian Franz. Fürstenberg was obliged to resign the ministry but was allowed to retain the office of vicar-general and curator of education. He now turned his entire attention towards the remodelling of elementary education. Through his ordinances for elementary schools in 1782, 1788, and 1801, he freed the system of elementary education of at least the most striking abuses. In order to obtain zealous and competent teachers he founded a normal school in 1783, which he put in charge of the famous educator, Bernard Overberg. After Prussia had taken possession of Münster in 1803, Fürstenberg's influence over the educational system began to decline, and when in 1805 he protested against the appointment of a professor of Protestant theology at the Catholic University of Münster, he was honourably dismissed as curator of education on the plea of old age. In 1807 he also resigned the position of vicar-general. Fürstenberg's renown as an educator had drawn some of the greatest minds of Europe to Münster, among them the Princess Amelia von Gallitzin, in whose return to the Catholic Faith from which she had become estranged in her youth, he was greatly instrumental.

MICHAEL OTT

Fussola

A titular see in Numidia. It was a fortified town, inhabited for the most part by Donatists and situated forty miles from Hippo. St Augustine appointed as its first Catholic bishop, about 416, a young man named Antonius, who afterwards caused him much anxiety (Ceillier, "Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques", Paris, 1861, Vlll, 11 sqq.). A certain Melior is known to have been bishop in 484 (Gams,(465, col. 3), and the see still existed in the seventh century (Byzantische Zeitschrift, II, 26). The fortress of Fossala completed the defences of Hippo.

S. VAILHÉ

John Fust

(Or FAUST.)

A partner of Gutenberg in promoting the art of printing, d. at Paris about 1466. He belonged to a wealthy family of Mainz, but very little is known of his early life. In 1450 he became a partner of Gutenberg in the establishment of a printing plant at Mainz, Fust furnishing the capital and taking a mortgage on the tools and materials as security. The partners carried on the business on several years, but the partnership was dissolved in 1455, when Fust brought suit against Gutenberg for the money that he had advanced and obtained possession of the printing apparatus. The business was then continued by Fust with his son-in-law, Peter Schöffer, of Gernsheim, as partner. In 1462, when Mainz was sacked Fust's workmen were scattered, and they carried with them to various countries the printing process which had been guarded as a secret in Mainz. Fust continued the business, however, until 1466, when he is thought to have gone to Paris and to have died there of the plague. Among the books that were issued from the press of Fust and Gutenberg the best known is the magnificent Latin "Bible of forty-two lines" (see Illustration s.v. EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE), so called because it was printed forty-two lines to the page. It is known also as the Mazarin Bible, because the first known copy of it was discovered in Cardinal Mazarin's library at Paris. It is a fine specimen of the early printer's art. They also printed an indulgence granted by Pope Nicholas V to the King of Cyprus (1454-5). In partnership with Schöffer Fust Published a Psalter (1457), the first printed book with a complete date; the "Rationale Divinorum Officiorum" of Durandus (1459); and Cicero's "De Officiis" (1465), the first printed edition of a classical author. Several other books that were printed by Fust and his partners are still extant, some of them very beautiful in their execution.

EDMUND BURKE

William Benedict Fytch

An English Franciscan friar ot the Capuchin Reform, whose family name was Filch; b. at Canfield, Essex, in 1563; d. 1610. His parents were of the Puritan party, and he himself professed Calvinism until he was sent to study in London where he embraced the Catholic faith. He went over to Paris and entered the Capuchin order. In 1599 he was at his own request sent to England; he had hardly landed when he was seized and cast into prison. Here he remained for three years, and whilst there held conferences with the heretics concerning true Faith. He was at length released through the intercession of French Ambassador and sent back to France, where he was appointed master of novices. He was held in great reverence at the French Court; and amongst the people on account of his gift of miracles and spirit of prophecy. He wrote several ascetical works, the most famous being his treatise "The Will of God", which was written in English, but speedily translated into various languages. In 1625 this treatise was translated into Latin by order of the Minister General of the Order.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Gabala

A titular see of Syria Prima. Ten bishops of this city are known between 325 and 553, the most famous being St. Hilary, writer and martyr (fourth century), and Severian, first the friend but later the enemy of St. John Chrysostom (see Echos d'Orient, IV, 15-17; IX, 220). Since the sixth century Gabala has been an exempt archdiocese directly dependent on the Patriarch of Antioch. The diocese is again noticed in the tenth century (Echos d'Orient, X, 97 and 140). When the Arabs took possession of the city in 639, they found there a Byzantine fortress, beside which the Caliph Moaviah erected a second. According to the Arabian geographer Yaqout, the Greeks recovered the city from the Mussulmans in 969, who recaptured it in 1081. the crusaders entered Gabala in 1109, and it was henceforth the seat of a Latin diocese. For the Latin titulars see Le Quien, III, 1169; Ducange, "Les familles d'outre-mer", 795-796, and especially Eubel, I, 267; II, 173. Saladin took the city in 1187, and in 1517 it fell into the hands of the Sultan Selim. Gabala, at present called Djebeleh, is a caza of the vilayet of Beirut, and numbers 3000 inhabitants, all of whom are Mussulmans. There are to be seen here a small harbour, numerous ruins, sepulchral chambers, and ancient Christian chapels hewn in the rock, a Roman theatre, baths and mosques, one of which, formerly the cathedral, contains the tomb of the Sultan Ibrahim-Eddem, who died in 778.

S. VAILHÉ

Gabbatha

The Aramaic appellation of a place in Jerusalem, designated also under the Greek name of Lithostrotos. It occurs only in John 19:13, where the Evangelist states that Pontius Pilate "brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha." The name "Gabbatha" is certainly an Aramaic word, for by "Hebrew" St. John, like other New Testament writers, denotes the Aramaic language which was spoken commonly at the time in Judea. It is not a mere translation of "Lithostrotos", which properly means the tessellated or mosaic pavement whereon stood the judgment-seat, but which was extended to the place itself in front of Pilate's prætorium, where that pavement was laid. This was proved by the practice of St. John, who elsewhere gives Aramaic names as distinctly belonging to places, not as mere translations of the Greek. This is proved also by the fact that "Gabbatha" is derived from a root (meaning "back", or "elevation"), which refers, not to the kind of pavement, but to the "elevation" of the place in question. It thus appears that the two names "Lithostrotos" and "Gabbatha" were due to different characteristics of the spot where Pilate delivered Our Lord to death. The Aramaic name was derived from the configuration of that spot, the Greek name from the nature of its pavement. Efforts have been made by commentators to identify "Gabbatha" either with the outer court of the Temple, which is known to have been paved, or with the meeting-place of the Great Sanhedrin, which was half within, half without that Temple's outer court, or again with the ridge at the back of the House of the Lord; but these efforts cannot be considered as successful. The only that can be gathered with certainty from St. John's statement (xix, 13) is that "Gabbatha" denotes the usual place in Jerusalem, where Pilate had his judicial seat, and whither he caused Jesus to be brought forth, that he might deliver in His hearing, and in that of the Jewish multitude, his formal and final sentence of condemnation.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Gaboon

Vicariate Apostolic of Gabun

Formerly called the Vicariate Apostolic of the Two Guineas. The name Gaboon (Gabão) was originally given by the Portuguese to the estuary on which stands the town of Libreville, and to a narrow strip of territory on either bank of this arm of the sea. In the days of the slave trade it was merely a trading station on the Coast of Guinea which at that time extended from the Senegal to the mouth of the Congo River. At the present time the name of Guinea for this territory and the ecclesiastical title "The Two Guineas" have gone out of use both in the civil and the religious sense, and Gaboon designates the northern portion of French Congo, south of the Equator and lying between the Atlantic ocean and longitude 12 east of Paris. It is coextensive with the basin of the Ogowai River, to which should be added several small subsidiary streams as the Muni, the Komo, and the Rembo-Nkomi. Its surface though broken and uneven is at no point of great elevation, and is covered by a great dense, tropical forest interrupted only by some rocky plains in the south. The only roads are the tracks used by the natives, along which caravans travel on foot. The rivers are often blocked by rapids, so that navigation is both uncertain and hazardous. The climate is sultry, humid, and subject to storms, but the temperature remains almost stationary; the rainy season lasts from September to May. On the whole it is a healthy climate for men of temperate lives, and the mortality there is one of the lowest on the West-African coast. The population of Gaboon is very mixed, Gaboon being the geographical terminus of the migration drawn from the interior by trade. No doubt many of the races become broken up on the way, but those that reach the coast are slowly absorbed among the earlier settlers there. Indeed many of these tribes are semi-nomadic by habit, and change the sites of their villages as soon as the lands in their vicinity have become exhausted by crop-growing. It thus comes to that pass every four or five years a new ethnographical map of the country is necessary.

However it is possible to divide the peoples into several groups. Under the first group may be included the old slave-trading races that have been established a long time on the Coast. Of these the most important people are the Mpongwe, dwelling along the Gaboon estuary; they are mentioned in the eighteenth century by Dutch navigators. As a race they are intelligent and keen and enjoy an undoubted ascendancy over the other black races. They are, moreover, gentle and hospitable, too hospitable perhaps. They easily fall victims to European vices, and immorality and alcohol have almost wiped them out. Not more than a few hundred of them remain, many of whom go as traders far into the interior. The point of the Gaboon peninsula is occupied by the Bengas; the creeks or inlets of the Manda and the Muni by the Baseki, usually known as the Boulous (Bulu); both tribes live by fishing and are dying out from alcoholism. Their languages differ from each other and equally from that of the Mpongwe. However the three tribes settled towards the South in the delta of the Ogowai, the Orongous (Orongu), the Galoas, and the Nkomis use a slightly modified form of Mpongwe, follow the same customs, have the same vices as the Mpongwe of the estuary, and engage in the rubber trade as well as in fishing. The second group is made up of one single tribe, the Fans or Pahouins (Pawin) who inhabit all the northern portion of Gaboon as far as the Ivindo, and in places are to be found along the left bank of the Ogowai. They are true barbarians and are an invading race, whose progress towards the coast goes on unceasingly.

They do not deserve all that former travellers have said as to their ferocity, but they are very fierce-looking, muscular, warlike, and above all vindictive. They are not, however, slave-dealers, nor do they, properly speaking, own slaves; their wives are really their slaves, and polygamy is more in vogue and more bestial among them than elsewhere. Nevertheless they are not victims to the grosser forms of immorality, in the same measure as other tribes are, but along the great rivers and at the coast alcoholism works terrible havoc among them. Those of them who dwell in the interior still practise cannibalism on their prisoners of war.

A third group of peoples is to be found in the southern part of the country; in this territory live tribes still given over to slavery. Thus, for instance, the Esteiras and the Balkalai, who act as middlemen in trading with the tribes dwelling in the mountains, the Bayakas, Bapunus, Ndjavis, Ishogos, Mbétés, Shakés, Adumas, who in exchange for articles of commerce sell their children as slaves. These slaves are brought secretly to the coast, but are no longer shipped to the Antilles or Brazil, instead they are bought by the Mpongwe and Nkomis who are thus enabled to lead lives of idleness. All these groups of tribes practise fetichism. They believe in a God who made the world, in an immortal soul and in retribution for evil; they worship spirits and ghosts, and are under the sway of sorcerers and secret societies, to which even the authority of their chiefs must yield.

The early evangelization of the country by Capuchins from Italy left no permanent traces. About 1840 an American prelate, Monsignor Barron, was the first to answer the appeal made for a priest of the Catholics among the freed negroes that the United States Government had shipped back to the coast of Africa. Monsignor Barren gave up an important post which he held under the Archbishop of Philadelphia and made two voyages to the Guinea Coast between 1840 and 1843. The Venerable Père Libermann had just at this date founded at Amiens his new congregation of the Sacred Heart of Mary, which later was united with that of the Holy Ghost; he furnished the first missionaries to Monsignor Barren. In the first year six out of seven of the missionaries died as much of starvation as of sickness; the seventh, after increditable adventures, succeeded in reaching Cape Palm on the Gaboon. This was Père Bessieux and the date, 29 September, 1884. The French navy had set up a small fort there intended as a lookout for vessels engaged in the slave trade, and consequently Père Bessieux was able to erect the first station at this spot. The following year brought him many helpers, and among them Père Le Berre. In 1848 a slave dhow was captured by the French and forty-nine slaves were located near the mission station on a little plateau which was thereupon called Libreville (Freetown). Père Le Berre was given the official title of "Professor of Morals" and began instructing them. The next year the first nuns arrived, the French Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. In 1849 Père Bessieux was recalled to Europe, consecrated bishop, and sent back to Gaboon as Vicar Apostolic of the Two Guineas, with jurisdiction over a coast line 2000 leagues long, where to-day there are twenty-five ecclesiastical divisions.

About this time the Libreville mission made many attempts to set up stations elsewhere; only one was a success, that among the Bengas of Cape Esteiras, and it was called St. Joseph's Mission. To-day nearly all of this small tribe are Catholics. While the Libreville mission was in process of organization, building a suitable church, enlarging its schools, and clearing its grounds, the little government station about a mile away was gradually becoming a small town. In 1860 it became necessary to erect a parish there, and thus was founded the mission of Saint-Pierre, having for special object the conversion of the Mpongwe. The work of the sisters was transferred to this place as well as the school for girls and a native hospital; later the colony built a church and at present the parish contains about 3000 faithful. Monsignor Bessieux died in 1876 after having spent 33 years in Africa; he was succeeded by his early companion, Monsignor Le Berre. Under the new bishop new stations were rapidly founded, and the Congregation of the Holy Ghost continued to supply the necessary missionaries. In 1879 a mission to the Pahouins of the Como was attempted for the first time, and the Station of Saint Paul de Donghila was opened; after great hardships it is now a flourishing mission counting more than 1000 Catholics. Soon afterwards the missionaries began to move inwards from the coast and the estuary and in 1881 the mission of Saint-François-Xavier was founded at Lambarene on the Ogowai; in 1883 that of Saint-Pierre-Claver among the Adumas, which was afterwards moved to Franceville near the source of that river. In 1886 at Fernando Vaz in the Nkomi country the mission of Sainte-Anne was organized. These three places are now great mission centres and are thoroughly equipped. It would be only fitting to add to this list Monsignor Le Berre's new stations in the Kamerun sad in Spanish Guinea; but they now form part of new ecclesiastical divisions. In 1891, after 45 years of missionary life, the holy bishop died. His works had increased tenfold and his memory is blessed. He was succeeded by Monsignor Le Roy. During the three years which the new bishop spent at Gaboon three new stations were created. One arose on the banks of the Rio Muni, first at Kogo, then at Butika, at the present frontier of Spanish Guinea, among the Fans of the north. Another was established below the first rapids of the Ogowai, also in the Fan country. This station was Saint-Michel of Ndjole. The third station, Sainte-Croix, is surrounded by the Esteira peoples of the south-west. At the same time a fresh impulse was given to the evangelizing movement, for this was the period of the principal labour on the languages, of translations, of relations, of very useful journeys of exploration, of ordinances favouring the work of the catechists, of agreements with the tribes concerning the reform of their family customs, etc.

The active direction of Monsignor Le Roy ceased in 1896 when he was elected Superior General of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost. He was replaced at Gaboon by Monsignor Adam, the present bishop, who has established three new stations: Notre-Dame-des-Trois-Epis, at Samba on the Ngume, a tributary of the left bank of the Ogowai, and Saint-Martin, a little further up the same river, both of them in the midst of the mixed populations of the south. The third post, of quite recent foundation, is Okano near Boue on the Ogowai in the Fan country. More than two hundred missionaries have died in the Gaboon territory and a hundred continue the work. They are divided into priests, brothers, both lay and teaching, and nuns. There are 47 priests; native priests and seminarians, native brothers and sisters, and upwards of a hundred catechists aid in the work of evangelization, and the number of Catholics is more than 12,000. The moral gain is slow but evident; progress is always being made. There have been great obstacles to the spread of the Gospel, obstacles not always due to the barbarism, fetichism, slavery, and cannibalism of the pagan tribes.

M. BRIAULT

St. Gabriel the Archangel

"Fortitudo Dei", one of the three archangels mentioned in the Bible. Only four appearances of Gabriel are recorded:

• In Dan., viii, he explains the vision of the horned ram as portending the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, after whose death the kingdom will be divided up among his generals, from one of whom will spring Antiochus Epiphanes.
• In chapter ix, after Daniel had prayed for Israel, we read that "the man Gabriel . . . . flying swiftly touched me" and he communicated to him the mysterious prophecy of the "seventy weeks" of years which should elapse before the coming of Christ. In chapter x, it is not clear whether the angel is Gabriel or not, but at any rate we may apply to him the marvellous description in verses 5 and 6.
• In N.T. he foretells to Zachary the birth of the Precursor, and
• to Mary that of the Saviour.

Thus he is throughout the angel of the Incarnation and of Consolation, and so in Christian tradition Gabriel is ever the angel of mercy while Michael is rather the angel of judgment. At the same time, even in the Bible, Gabriel is, in accordance with his name, the angel of the Power of God, and it is worth while noting the frequency with which such words as "great", "might", "power", and "strength" occur in the passages referred to above. The Jews indeed seem to have dwelt particularly upon this feature in Gabriel's character, and he is regarded by them as the angel of judgment, while Michael is called the angel of mercy. Thus they attribute to Gabriel the destruction of Sodom and of the host of Sennacherib, though they also regard him as the angel who buried Moses, and as the man deputed to mark the figure Tau on the foreheads of the elect (Ezech., 4). In later Jewish literature the names of angels were considered to have a peculiar efficacy, and the British Museum possesses some magic bowls inscribed with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac incantations in which the names of Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel occur. These bowls were found at Hillah, the site of Babylon, and constitute an interesting relic of the Jewish captivity. In apocryphal Christian literature the same names occur, cf. Enoch, ix, and the Apocalypse of the Blessed Virgin.

As remarked above, Gabriel is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, but it is not unreasonable to suppose with Christian tradition that it is he who appeared to St. Joseph and to the shepherds, and also that it was he who "strengthened" Our Lord in the garden (cf. the Hymn for Lauds on 24 March). Gabriel is generally termed only an archangel, but the expression used by St. Raphael, "I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord" (Tob., xii, 15) and St. Gabriel's own words, "I am Gabriel, who stand before God" (Luke 1, 19), have led some to think that these angels must belong to the highest rank; but this is generally explained as referring to their rank as the highest of God's messengers, and not as placing them among the Seraphim and Cherubim (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. cxii, a.3; III, Q. xxx, a.2, ad 4um).

In addition to the literature under ANGEL and in the biblical dictionaries, see PUSEY, The Prophet Daniel (London, 1868); EDERSHEIM, Jesus the Messiah (London and New York, 1890), Append. XIII; H. CROSBY, Michael and Gabriel in Homiletic Review (1890), XIX, 160-162; BARDENHEWER, Mariä-Verkündigung in Bibl. Studien, X, 496 sqq.

HUGH POPE

Brothers of Saint Gabriel

The Congregation of the Brothers of Christian Instruction of St. Gabriel was originally founded by St. Louis Grignon de Montfort in 1705, but it did not spread much till it was amalgamated with one founded in 1835 by Monsignor Deshayes. Vicar-General of Rennes. It took the anomalous title of the Brothers of St. Gabriel; because the first chapel of the congregation was dedicated to St. Gabriel; this was at Boulogne. The object of the congregation is the Christian education of the young and also of the blind, the deaf, dumb, and the care and education or orphans. The members take no vows, but after making a novitiate of three years they promise to obey the superior and to devote themselves to the works of their institute; they are generally men of sufficient means to support themselves. They are governed by a superior elected by the votes of the whole community for three years: he is assisted by four counsellors elected in the same way. The congregation in 1851 had as many as ninety-one houses mostly in France and in the Diocese of Frankfort in Germany. Later it had 122 schools in France besides two for the blind and eight for the deaf-mutes. The French mother-house was at St. Laurent-sur-Sevre in Vendée: in 1880 it had 790 members. Recent statistics give the congregation 170 schools and colleges, eight asylums for the deaf and dumb, three for the blind, and several homes for orphans. The novitiate for Canada is a Sault-au-Recollet near Montreal. The brothers have a college at Montreal and four schools in the archdiocese, besides three schools in the Diocese of Three Rivers and one at St. Ours in the Diocese of St. Hyacinth.

FRANCESCA M. STEELE

Bl. Gabriel Possenti

Pasionist student; renowned for sanctity and miracles; born at Assisi, 1 March, 1838; died 27 February, 1862, at Isola di Gran Sasso, Province of Abruzzo, Italy; son of Sante Possenti and Agnes Frisciotti; received baptism on the day of his birth and was called Francesco, the name by which he was known before entering religion, educated at the Christian Brothers' School, and at the Jesuit college at Spoleto. Immediately after the completion of his secular education, he embraced the religious state; on 21 September, 1856 he was clothed with the Passionist habit, and received the name of Gabriele dell' Addolorata. He made his religious profession on 22 September, 1857, and then began his ecclesiastical studies as a Passionist student. He was gifted with talent of a higher order and with a wonderful memory; and in his exact observance of rule, his spirit of prayer, and his fervent devotion to the Passion of our Lord, to the Holy Eucharist, and to the Dolours of the Blessed Virgin. In the sixth year of his religious life he died of consumption; his death was that of the just, holy and edifying, and he was buried in the church attached to the retreat at Isola di Gran Sasso where his remains are still entombed, and where numerous prodigies have been wrought, and numerous conversions effected, through his intercession.

Little was known of Gabriel's extraordinary spiritual gifts during his life. He was not singular, he conformed himself to the community life; he was only a fervent and exemplary Passionist novice and student hidden fromthe world in the cloister. After death, this young religious in a few years was declared venerable by the Church, thereby testifying that he had practised all the virtues in a heroic degree; and he was beatified and raised to the honours of the altar, by special privilege of the supreme pontiff before he was fifty years dead.

His solemn beatification took place on 31 May, 1908, in the Vatican basilica, in the presence of the cardinals then in Rome, of the Passionist fathers resident in Rome and of representatives from all the provinces of the congregation. Among those present were many who had known the beatified during his life, including one of his brothers, Father Norbert, C.P., his old spiritual director and confessor and Signor Dominico Tiberi, who had been miraculously cured through his intercession.

The Mass and Office in honour of Blessed Gabriel are allowed to the whole Passionist congregation, and his feast day is celebrated on 31 May. It is the express wish of Leo XIII and Pius X that he should be regarded as the chief patron of the youth of today, and especially as the patron of young religious, both novices and professed, in all that concerns their interior lives.

ARTHUR DEVINE

Gabriel Sionita

A learned Maronite, famous for his share in the publication of the Parisian polyglot of the Bible; b. 1577, at Edden on the Lebanon; d. 1648, at Paris. Though he came to Rome at the age of seven, he always looked upon Arabic as his mother tongue. At Rome he learnt Latin, Syriac, and acquired a slight knowledge of Hebrew; he studied theology, but did not receive the priesthood till much later, in Paris, at the advanced age of 45. Savary de Breves, once French ambassador to Turkey and interested in Oriental studies, when recalled from Rome, took two Maronites with him to Paris to assist in the publication of the polyglot under the auspices of de Thou, the royal librarian, and Cardinal Duperron. The two Maronites were Gabriel Sionita and John Hesronita. Gabriel, however, was by far the more prominent of the two. They received an annual stipend of 600 livres, and Gabriel was appointed to the chair of Semitic languages at the Sorbonne. Unfortunately both de Thou and Duperron died within four years, and serious financial difficulties arose. In 1619, it is true, the assembly of French clergy at Blois voted 8000 livres to support the undertaking; but through some malversation of funds, this money was never actually paid; at least such is the accusation brought by Gabriel in his preface to the Syriac Psalter which he published. The Maronites seem to have become involved in pecuniary embarrassments, which led to unseemly feuds with the leaders of the undertaking. In 1619, however, by royal diploma, Gabriel's stipend had been raised to 1200 livres; the following year he received the doctor's degree and two years later the priesthood. Evidently all had been done to honour and support these Eastern scholars; and the blame probably lies largely with Gabriel, who can hardly be excused from idleness and thriftlessness. In 1626, as Gabriel held no classes owing to lack of students, his stipend was curtailed. After some time, however, he was paid on the original basis; and, in 1629, his salary was increased to 2000 livres. In 1630, he recommenced work on the polyglot; but, as he did not apply himself industriously, and was even accused, apparently with some show of reason, of carelessness in the work, he again found himself in difficulties. In the quarrel which ensued, Richelieu supported the editor, Le Jay, against the Maronites; and as it was feared that Gabriel might leave the country, the cardinal had him imprisoned in Vincennes (1640); he was released, however, at the expiration of three months' time, when he had signed an undertaking and given sureties that he would prepare the texts for the polyglot. He had actually completed his great task some time before his death, which occurred at the age of 71. Gabriel's share in the polyglot is as follows: he revised and corrected almost all Syriac and Arabic texts; and he translated the Arabic and Syriac texts into Latin with the exceptions of the Book of Ruth. But he made only a revision and not a fresh translation of the Gospels into Latin, nor did he translate from Syriac into Latin the Sapiential books or the Apocalypse. Together with John Hesronita and Victor Sciala he published, in 1614, a Latin translation of the (Arabic) Psalter; in 1616, he published an Arabic grammar, of which, however, but one division (Liber I) appeared, containing rules for reading. In 1619, appeared his "Geographia Nubiensis", i.e. a translation of the Maronite editions of the same, or rather of Edrisi's geography, with a small treatise as appendix, "De nonnullis Orient. urb. nec non indig. relig. ac. moribus". In 1634, was issued a "Poema enigmaticum" in praise of Divine wisdom by an ancient Syrian philosopher; in 1630, "Testamentum et pactiones inter Mohammedem et Christianae fidei cultores", in Arabic and Latin; and finally (1640-2) three small pamphlets, one in Latin and two in French, containing his defence in the actions of Le Jay and Vitre.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Gad

(, fortune, luck).

A proper name which designates in the Bible, (I), a patriarch; (II), a tribe of Israel; (III), a prophet; (IV), a pagan deity.

I. GAD (PATRIARCH)

A patriarch, to wit, the seventh son of Jacob, and the first by Zelpha, Lia's handmaid. He was born to Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria (Aram), like his full brother, Aser (Gen., xxxv, 26). On his birth, Lia exclaimed: Happily! () and therefore called his name Gad (Gen., xxx, 11). The exclamation and the name given thereupon bespeak a real relation between the name of this son of Jacob, and that of the pagan deity which was also called "Gad"; although the exact nature of this relation is variously estimated at the present day. The patriarch Gad begot seven sons (Gen., xlvi, 16). Nothing more is said in Holy Writ concerning him personally.

II. GAD (TRIBE)

Tribe of Israel on the east of Jordan, between eastern Manasses on the north, and Ruben on the south. The territorial possessions of the descendants of Gad cannot be given with perfect exactness. On the west, the portion of Gad abutted on the Jordan, and ran up the Arabah or Jordan valley, in a narrow strip, from the northern end of the Dead Sea to the southern extremity of the lake of Genesareth; but on the other three sides, its boundaries cannot be described with equal certainty. Thus, on the east, the Bible assigns to Gad no distinct limit. On the north, it gives, in one place (Deut., iii, 16), the river Jeboc as the extreme limit of that tribe, while, in two other places (Jos., xiii, 26, 30), it treats as such the locality of Manaim (Heb. Mahanaim) which was to the north of the Jeboc. In like manner, on the south, the sacred text represents in Jos., xiii, 15 sqq., as the boundary between Gad and Ruben, a straight line drawn eastwards from the Jordan and passing exactly northward of Hesebon, a town which it ascribes to Ruben; whereas, it assigns elsewhere (Num., xxxii, 34 sqq.; Jos., xxi, 37), to Ruben several towns north of Hesebon, and to Gad, the very town of Hesebon. From these apparently conflicting biblical data it is natural to infer that the extent of the tribe of Gad varied at different times in Hebrew history, and to consider as simply conventional the definite limits ascribed to Gad on the ordinary maps of Palestine divided among the twelve tribes of Israel. The following are the principal towns mentioned in Jos., xiii, 25 sqq. and Num., xxxii, 34-36, as belonging to the descendants of Gad: Jaser, Ramoth, Masphe, Betonim, Manaim, Betharan, Bethnemra, Socoth, Saphon, Jegbaa, Etroth, Sophan. During the journey through the wilderness, the tribe of Gad counted upwards of 40,000 men and marched with Ruben and Simeon on the south side of Israel. Allowed by Moses to settle on the east side of the Jordan, on condition of aiding in the conquest of western Palestine, the Gadites complied with that condition, took possession of the territory which they had desired as favourable to pastoral pursuits, and formed for centuries the most important Israelite tribe beyond Jordan. They were a warlike race whose valour is highly praised in the parting blessing of Moses (Deut., xxxiii, 20, 21) and in the prophecy of Jacob (Gen., xlix, 19), and were able to hold their own in the raids made against them, chiefly by the children of Ammon. Upon the disruption of Solomon's empire, they formed a part of the northern kingdom, and shared with varying success in the subsequent wars against northern Israel. Their name appears on the Moabite stone (line 10). They were carried into captivity at the same time as the other tribes beyond Jordan by Teglathphalasar (734 b.c.), and in the time of the prophet Jeremias their cities were inhabited by the Ammonites. Their territory comprised the land of Galaad, the fertility and beauty of which are still praised by eastern travellers.

III. GAD (PROPHET)

A Hebrew prophet, contemporary with King David. He came to that prince when the latter was hiding in the cave of Odollam (I Kings [Samuel], xxii, 5), and was probably one of the Gadites who joined David there (I Par. [Chronicles], xii, 8). He then began under God's guidance his career of counsellor, which eventually won him the name of "the seer of David" (II Kings, xxiv, 11; I Par., xxi, 9). Gad announced to the king the divine punishment for numbering the people, and advised him to erect an altar to God on Ornan's threshing-floor (II Kings, xxiv, 11 sqq.; I Par., xxi, 9 sqq.). He is referred to as the author of a book narrating part of David's reign (I Par., xxix, 29) and as having assisted that king in arranging the musical services of the House of the Lord (II Par., xxix, 25).

IV. GAD (PAGAN GOD)

A pagan divinity explicitly mentioned in Is., lxv, 11, where the Hebrew name , "Gad", is rightly rendered "Fortune" in the Vulgate. As far as is known in the present day, Gad is a word of Chanaanite origin, which, long before the passage of Isaias just referred to was written, had, from a mere appellative, become the proper name of a deity. Biblical testimony to the ancient worship of Gad in Chanaan is certainly found in the names of such places as Baalgad (Jos., xi, 17; xii, 7; xiii, 5) and Maglalgad "tower of Gad" (Jos., xv, 37). A trace of Gad's worship in Syria may perhaps be found in Lia's exclamation "begad" on the birth of her first son when she also called "Gad" (Gen., xxx, 11); this was admitted of old by St. Augustine (Quæstiones in Heptateuchum, in P. L., XXXIV, col. 571), and at a much more recent date by Dom Calmet, in his Commentary on Genesis.

Francis E. Gigot

Gadara

A titular see of Palaestina Prima; there were two sees of this name, one in Palaestina Prima, the other in Palaestina Secunda; it is therefore difficult to ascertain to which of the two cities the known bishops belonged (Le Quien, III, 597). Gadara in Palaestina Secunda is to-day known as Oum-Keiss, beyond the Jordan, while Gadara in Palaestina Prima, the subject of this article, has not been identified. There was a Gader (Jos., xii, 13) whose king was defeated by Josue, a place which is also mentioned in I Par., ii, 51; Jos., xv, 58. It is to-day called Djédur, half-way between Bethlehem and Hebron. A Gedera (Greek Gadera) is mentioned as being in the plain of Sephelah (Jos., xv, 36; I Par., iv, 23) and is to-day called Khirbet-Djedireh, south-west of Amwas, or rather Qatrah, a village of the plain of Sephelah. Perhaps neither of these cities is our Gadara, and it can hardly be identified, as is often done, with Gazara or Gazer, a well-known Scriptural city, now Tell-Djezer, near Amwas.

S. VAILHÉ

Agnolo, Giovanni, and Taddeo Gaddi

Florentine artists, Taddeo being the father of Agnolo and Giovanni. The dates of their birth are very uncertain. Taddeo was probably born about 1300; Agnolo and Giovanni after 1333. The father died in 1366, Giovanni in 1383, Agnolo in 1396, and all three are buried in Santa Croce in Florence. Taddeo was the godson of Giotto, lived with him twenty-four years, and became the most eminent of his numerous scholars. Vasari says that he "surpassed his master in colour", and, in some of his works, "even in expression". Two paintings signed by him are in existence — one in Berlin, dated 1333, and another in the church of Mogognano, dated 1355. The best of his extant frescoes are those in the Giugni Chapel, formerly belonging to the Baroncelli family, in the church of Santa Croce, but his most extensive works, in the churches of San Spirito and the Serviti, have all disappeared. Many of his frescoes and several of his most celebrated altar-pieces have entirely disappeared. His principal work was in Florence, but he also executed several examples in Arezzo and in the Casentino. Perhaps he is best known for the fact that he was a distinguished architect, and designed the present Ponte Vecchio in Florence, and also lower down the river a still finer bridge (Ponte Trinita), which was destroyed in the sixteenth century. He was very successful, and amassed great wealth.

His son Agnolo entered the studios of Giovanni da Milano and Jacopo del Casentino; his best work is in the cathedral at Prato, where there are thirteen frescoes illustrating the story of the Holy Girdle, and in the church of Santa Croce at Florence, where there are eight panels by him, commemorating the legend of the Cross. His earliest work, according to Vasari, illustrated the story of Christ raising Lazarus, and was regarded as the most wonderful painting of a dead body that had ever been seen. He was the master of an even more celebrated man, Cennino Cennini, the author of an important treatise on painting in fresco, distemper, and other media, which is the chief source of our information respecting the technic of the early Florentine artists, and also of a book, the importance of which, especially with regard to tempera painting and the application of gold, can hardly be over-estimated. Giovanni Gaddi, the brother and pupil of Agnolo, was a man of much less importance, and hardly any works now remain which can be attributed to him with certainty, as in the rebuilding of San Spirito at Florence most of his work was destroyed.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Gaeta

ARCHDIOCESE OF GAETA (CAIETANA).

Archdiocese in the province of Caserta in Campania (Southern Italy). It is the ancient Caieta, situated on the slopes of the Torre di Orlando, a promontory overlooking the Mediterranean. Gaeta was an ancient Ionian colony of the Samians according to Strabo; legend, however, derives its foundation from Caieta, the nurse of Æneas or Ascanius. Among the ancients it was famous for its lovely and temperate climate. Its port was of great importance in trade and in war, and was restored under Antoninus Pius. Among its antiquities is the mausoleum of Lucius Munatius Plancus. As Byzantine influence declined in Southern Italy the town began to grow. In the ninth century (840) the inhabitants of the neighbouring Formiæ fled to Gaeta through fear of the Saracens. Though under the suzerainty of Byzantium, Gaeta had then, like Naples and Amalfi, a republican form of government under a "dux" or lord. It was a strong bulwark against Saracen invasion, and in 847 aided Leo IV in the naval fight at Ostia. Later, however, looking rather to local safety, its dux, Docibilis, entered into treaties with the Saracens. From the end of the ninth century the principality of Capua claimed it, as a title for the younger son of the prince. In 1039 Gaeta, with Amalfi and Naples, acknowledged the rule of Guaimario, Duke of Salerno; about forty years later with the whole duchy of Salerno it became part of Robert Guiscard's new Norman territory.

In the many wars for possession of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Gaeta, owing to its important strategic position, was attacked as often and as bravely as it was defended. In 1194 the Pisans, allies of Henry VI in the conquest of the kingdom, took possession of the town and held it as their own. In 1228 it rebelled against Frederick II and surrendered to the pope, but after the peace of San Germano (1230) it was given back to the Sicilian kingdom. In 1289 Don Jaime of Sicily tried to gain possession of it, but failed. In 1435 Alfonso V of Aragon (Alfonso I of Naples) besieged it, and displayed great generosity, to his own disadvantage, by succouring those unable to bear arms who had been driven out from the besieged town. After a disastrous naval battle he captured it, and gained control of the kingdom. In 1501 Gaeta was retaken by the French, who, after the defeat of Garigliano (3 Jan., 1504), abandoned it to Gonsalvo de Cordova, Ferdinand the Catholic's general. In the War of the Spanish Succession it was captured (1707) by the Austrian general Daun, after a stubborn resistance made by the Spanish viceroy. In 1806 Masséna took it; finally it became the last refuge of Francis II of Naples. After an heroic defence, it capitulated 13 Feb., 1861, thus sealing the annexation of the Kingdom of Naples to the Kingdom of Italy. Cialdini, the Piedmontese general, received the title of Duke of Gaeta.

This city has often been the refuge of illustrious personages: among others, of Gelasius II, who was born there: of Margaret, Queen of Naples (1387): of Gregory XII (1410) after the capture of Rome by Alexander V; finally, of Pius IX (1848), during the Roman revolution. The cathedral contains the relics of St. Erasmus, transferred from Formiæ, and is a handsome building dating from the twelfth century; the campanile, in Norman style, dates from 1279. The church of St. Francis, built by Frederick II, is in very fine Gothic-Italian style, and contains paintings and sculpture by many of the most famous Neapolitan artists. The Chapel of the Crucifix is a curiosity. It is built on a huge mass of rock that hangs like a wedge between two adjoining walls of rock. Legend tells how the rock was thus split at the moment of our Saviour's death. The episcopal see dates from 846, when Constantine, Bishop of Formiæ, fled thither and established his residence. The See of Formiæ, abandoned since the end of the sixth century, was thereafter united to that of Minturno (Minturnæ). In 1818 Pius VII joined to Gaeta the very ancient See of Fondi. It was once a suffragan of Capua, then directly subject to the pope. Pius IX raised it to archiepiscopal rank, without suffragans. Among its bishops of note were: Francesco Patrizio (1460), friend of Pius II, author of a work in nine books, "De Regno et De Institutione Regis", dedicated to Alfonso, Duke of Calabria; and Tommaso de Vio, better known as the famous Cardinal Cajetan. The Archdiocese of Gaeta has now 42 parishes with 83,600 faithful, 3 monasteries for men, 9 convents for women, and 2 Catholic weekly papers.

CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d'Italia (1870), XXI, 334-453; FERRARO, Memorie religiose e civili di Gaeta (Naples, 1903); Codex diplomaticus Cajetanus (Monte Cassino, 1887-91); CASTELMOLA, Memorie storiche della città di Gaeta (Milan, 1879).

U. BENIGNI

Ivan Sergejewitch Gagarin

Gagarin was of the princely Russian family which traces its origin to the ancient rulers of Starodub; born at Moscow, 1 August, 1814; died at Paris, 19 July, 1882.

Ivan (Johannes) was the son of the Russian state-councillor, Prince Sergius Gagarin, and Barbara Pushkin. He entered the service of the state at an early age, and was first named attaché to his uncle, Prince Gregory Gagarin, at Munich, on whose death, in 1837, he acted as secretary to the legation at Vienna. He was afterwards transferred to the Russian embassy at Paris, where his services were requisitioned in a similar capacity. He frequented the salon of his near relation, Madame Sophie Swetchine, and was on terms of familiar intercourse with Ravignan, Lacordaire's successor in the pulpit of Notre-Dame. Probably this dual influence assisted in bringing about his conversion to Catholicism, in 1842. On 19 April of that year Gagarin made his profession of faith, and was received into the Church by Ravignan, thereby, according to Russian law, putting an end to his diplomatic career, and forfeiting all rights to his inheritance. In the latter half of 1843 he entered the Society of Jesus, and passed his novitiate at Saint-Acheul. He was afterwards employed in professorial work at Brugelettes, where he taught church history and philosophy, at the College of Vaugirard and the school of Ste-Geneviève, and at Laval. He spent some time in Versailles and, in 1855, was back at Paris, from which date onward his pen was ever actively employed in the interests of religion and learning. Gagarin's literary output was considerable; many of his articles which appeared in current reviews and periodicals were afterwards collected and published in book form.

As a polemist Gagarin was thorough, and his work as a religious propagandist was of great importance. His grand object was to extinguish dissension and schism amongst the Slavonic peoples and win over Russia to the Church Universal. In conjunction with Fr. Daniel, Gagarin founded (1856) the journal "Etudes de théologie, de philosophie et d'histoire" (merged into "Etudes religieuses, historiques et littéraires", 1862); he re-established the "Œuvre de Prop. des Sts. Cyrille et Méthode" (1858), to promote corporate union amongst the Churches; and contributed to the "Contemporain", "Univers", "Ami de la Religion", "Précis historiques", "Correspondant", "Revue des questions historiques", etc. The "Polybiblion" (Paris, 1882), another review in which articles appeared from the pen of Gagarin, exhibits (XXXV, 166-188) a long list of his writings. These include: "La question religieuse dans l'Orient" (1854); "La Russie sera-t-elle catholique?" (Paris, 1856), tr. German (Münster, 1857), and rendered into other languages; "De l'Enseignement de la théologie dans l'Eglise russe" (1856); "Un document inédit sur l'expulsion des Jésuites de Moscou" (1857); "Les Starovères, l'Eglise russe et le Pape" (1857); "De la Réunion de l'Eglise orientale avec l'Eglise romaine" (1860); "Réponse d'un Russe à un Russe" (1860); "Tendences catholiques dans la société russe" (1860); "L'avenir de l'Eglise grecque unie" (1862); "La primauté de Saint-Pierre et les livres liturgiques de l'Eglise russe" (1863). Gagarin also spent several years in Constantinople, where he founded the Society of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, which aims at reuniting the Greek and Latin Churches. With this object, too, he published "L'Eglise roumaine", etc. (1865); "Constitution et situation présente de toutes les Eglises de l'Orient" (Paris, 1865); "Les Eglises orientales unies" (1867), scholarly and comprehensive studies on the Oriental Churches. Amongst works of Gagarin's more mature years are: "Les hymnes de l'Eglise russe" (1868); and the very interesting and discursive "Le Clergé Russe" (new ed. Brussels, 1871; tr. London, 1872). The latter is a collection, in book form, of a series of articles published in the "Etudes religieuses" under the title "La réforme du clergé russe", an indictment of the encroachments of civil aggression on ecclesiastical right. The "Mémoires d'Archetti" [Paris, Brussels, 1872 — "Les Jésuites de Russie" (1783-1785)]; and "Religion et Mœurs des Russes", edited by Gagarin (Paris, 1879), are further proofs of his great activity. Almost all the above were published at Paris. A portion of his works were re-issued by Brühl, in "Russische Studien zur Theologie und Geschichte" (Münster, 1857); and by Huttler, in "Katholike Studien" (Augsburg, 1865). When the religious orders were expelled from France, Gagarin went to Switzerland, but soon returned to Paris, where he died.

STREBER in Kirchenlex., s. v.; VAPEREAU, Dict, des Contemp., 6th ed. (Paris, 1893), s. v. Gagarine; ROSENTRAL, Convertitenbilder, III, ii, 194, sqq. See also, for indication as to sources, author's preface to various works.

P. J. MacAuley.

Achille Gagliardi

Ascetic writer and spiritual director; born at Padua, Italy, in 1537; died at Modena, 6 July, 1607. After a brilliant career at the University of Padua he entered the Society of Jesus in 1559 with two brothers younger than himself. He taught philosophy at the Roman college, theology at Padua and Milan, and successfully directed several houses of his order in Northern Italy. He displayed indefatigable zeal in preaching, giving retreats and directing congregations, and was held in great esteem as a theologian and spiritual guide by the Archbishop of Milan, St. Charles Borromeo, whom he accompanied on his pastoral visitations, and at whose request he published his popular handbook of religion, "Catechismo della fede cattolica" (Milan, 1584). He is the author of various works on asceticism and mysticism, some of them still unedited. Others were printed; shortly after his death, appeared the "Breve compendio intorno alla perfezione cristiana" (Brescia, 161), which has been translated into five languages, and more recently the valuable "Commentarii in Exercitia spiritualia S.P. Ignatii de Loyala" (Bruges, 1882), in which he explains very lucidly the author's suggestions for distinguishing between the good and evil external influences or internal motives which inspire or control human conduct.

PAUL DEBUCHY

William Gahan

A priest and author; born 5 June, 1732, in the parish of St. Nicholas, Dublin; died there, 6 December, 1804. He entered on his novitiate in the Augustinian Order, 12 Sept., 1748 and made his solemn profession 18 Sept., 1749. Shortly afterwards he was sent to Louvain, where he commenced his ecclesiastical studies, 1 June, 1750. He was ordained priest 25 May, 1755, but remained some years longer in the university to obtain his degree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1761 he returned to Dublin, and the supply of parochial clergy at the time being insufficient, he was asked by Archbishop Lincoln, and was permitted by his superiors, to take up the work of a curate in St. Paul's Parish. After three years in this capacity he returned to his convent in St. John's Street, where, in the leisure intervals of an ever-active missionary life, he composed the well-known "Sermons and Moral Discourses", on which his literary reputation chiefly rests.

These "Sermons" have gone through several editions (7th ed., Dublin, 1873); they are characterized not so much by exceptional eloquence as by solid learning and genuine piety. Dr. Gahan held the office of prior from 1770 to 1778, and also from 1803 until his death in the following year. In 1783 he was made provincial of his order, an office which he continued to hold for some years. In 1786-7 he travelled through England, France, and Italy. About 1783 he made the acquaintance of Dr. John Butler, Bishop of Cork, who afterwards turned Protestant on his succession to the title and estates of Dunboyne. A frequent and friendly correspondence took place between these two, and the grief which Dr. Gahan felt for the fall of his friend (1787) was turned into joy when he attended Lord Dunboyne on his deathbed, and received him back into the Church (1800). For this, however, he was to suffer. In spite of Dr. Gahan's advice and that of Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Dunboyne insisted on willing his County Meath estate to the trustees of Maynooth College, recently founded (1795) by the Irish Parliament. But as the will was disputed, and the issue of its validity, according to the law then in force, depended on whether or not the testator had died "a relapsed Papist", Dr. Gahan was compelled to appear as a witness, and was asked to reveal the nature of his ministrations to the dying nobleman. He refused, of course, to do so, and after undergoing six painful examinations in the Chancery office in Dublin, he was committed to jail at the Trim assizes, 24 Aug., 1802, to which the case had been referred for final judgment, his persistent refusal to testify as to the religion in which Dunboyne had died being ruled by the presiding judge, Lord Kilwarden, to constitute contempt of court. This imprisonment, however, lasted only a couple of days, and the remainder of Dr. Gahan's useful life was passed in peace in his convent in Dublin, where he died holding the office of prior. As there were no Catholic cemeteries at the time, his remains were laid to rest in the graveyard attached to St. James's Protestant Church.

Besides the "Sermons" already spoken of, Dr. Gahan published the following works: "A History of the Christian Church"; "The Christian's Guide to Heaven, or complete Manual of Catholic Piety"; "A Short and Plain Exposition of the Catechism"; "Catholic Devotion"; "A Short and Easy Method to Discern the True Religion from all the Sects which undeservedly assume that name"; "Youth Instructed in the Grounds of the Christian Religion"; "The Devout Communicant" (a revision of Father Baker's original); "The Spiritual Retreat, translated from the French of Bourdaloue"; "An Abridgment of the History of the Old and New Testament", i. e. of Reeve's translation from the French of Royamount.

BRENAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (2d ed., Dublin, s. d.), p. 642 sqq.; BATTERSBY, A History of the Abbeys, Convents, Churches, etc., of the Order, particularly of the Hermits of St. Augustine in Ireland, with biographical sketches, etc. (Dublin, 1858); in the sketch of Gahan, Brenan's account is supplemented and corrected; GILBERT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. (reproduces Brenan's inaccuracies).

P. J. TONER.

Claude Ferdinand Gaillard

A French engraver and painter; b. at Paris, 7 Jan., 1834; d. there, 27 Jan., 1887. His early studies were probably with Hopwood and Lecouturier; but his chief master was Cogniet, with whom he began engraving in 1850. In this year, he entered the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. At first he had to engrave fashion-plates to make money enough to live, but his determined application to his art brought him the Prix de Rome for engraving, in 1856. At his first public showing in 1860, his prints were called laboured, soft, and flacid, more like dry-point etchings than burin work, and he was advised to adhere to the established rules of his art. Gaillard had already chosen a new method, and his work was a shock, because not done according to the formulae that trammelled engravers of that day. He was such an innovator that in 1863 he was among the "refusés", but in their exhibition his portrait of Bellini was hailed by Burty as the work of a master, "who engraved with religious care and showed a high classical talent". Gaillard's manner — the new manner — was to engrave with soft, delicate lines, drawn closely together but not crossing, and to render with vaporous delicacy every fold, wrinkle, or mark on the skin with Van Eyck-like care. Henceforth Gaillard was represented by engravings and paintings at every Salon. He is best known by his "L'Homme à l'Oeillet", which brought him only $100. This masterpiece was completed in eight days — the face in one.

His admirable portraits of Piux IX and Leo XIII, broad in general effect although worked with microscopic zeal and realism, raised "the insubordinate scholar" to the rank of the most celebrated engraver of his day. Another great plate is the St. Sebastian modelled with delicate touches, and showing studied outline, delicate chiaroscuro, and a marvellous relief. "My aim" he said "is not to charm, but to be true; my art is to say all." His marvellous work led many to suspect he had some secret process or mysterious "tour de main", but it was his penetrating mind and observant eye that seized the soul beneath the human face. Gaillard was decorated in 1876, became officer of the "Légion d'Honneur" in 1886, and President of the Société des Graveurs au Burin in 1886. Just before his death the Government ordered him to engrave Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" and "Mona Lisa". As a painter Gaillard was accurate, minute and conscientious; yet his small canvases are effective, exhibit great power of characterization, and are large in their "ensemble". He painted the human face as he engraved it — with the precision and exactitude of the early Flemings. His catalogued engravings number 80; his "Virgin" after Bellini deserves special mention.

LEIGH HUNT

St. Gal

Of the ninety-eight bishops who have occupied the see of Clermont-Ferrand (Auvergne) the sixteenth and twenty-third bore the name of Gal, and both are numbered among the twenty-nine bishops of this church who are honoured as saints. The first and most illustrious was bishop from 527 to 551, the second, form 640 to 650. Born of a senatorial family of Auvergne, the first St. Gal early embraced the monastic life, and then became councillor to St. Quintianus, who he was to succeed in the See of Clermont. Tierry I, King of Austrasia, having invaded Auvergne, took Gal prisoner and attached him to the oratory of his palace. He regained his liberty some years later and returned to Clermont. Quintianus having died, Gal was chosen as his successor in 527. As bishop he was the intrepid defender of the rights of the Church against Sivigald, the governor appointed by Thierry, and after Sivigald's tragic death, the protector of his children from theprince's wrath. The chief event of his episcopate was the Council of Clermont in 535. Fifteen prelates of the kingdom of Austrasia assisted at itunder the presidency of Honoratus, Bishop of Bourges. They drew up seventeen canons, of which the first sixteen are contained in the Decretum of Gratian, and have become laws of the universal Church. The following is a summary of the most remarkable: bishops are prohibited from submitting to the deliberations of councils any private or temporal affairs, before having dealt with matters regarding discipline; clerics are forbidden to appeal to seculars in their disputes with bishops excommunication is pronounced against bishops who solicit the protection of princes in order to obtain the episcopacy, or who cause forged decrees of election to be signed. The council also declares itself forcibly against the marriages of Christians with Jews, marriages between relatives, and the misconduct of the clergy. In 541 Gal took part in the fourth Council of Orléans, which promulgated energetic decrees for the abolition of slavery, and in 549 in the fifth, which condemned the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius. His feast is celebrated on 3 July.

The second St. Gal succeed St. Cæsarius; he was a man of great sanctity, and was one of the most eminent bishops in Gaul. Little, however, is known of his life. His feast is kept 1 November.

A. FOURNET

Epistle to the Galatians

GALATIA

In the course of centuries, gallic tribes, related to those that invaded Italy and sacked Rome, wandered east through Illyricum and Pannonia. At length they penetrated through Macedonia (279 B.C.), and assembled in great numbers under a prince entitled Brennus, for the purpose of invading Greece and plundering the rich temple of Delphi. The leaders disagreed and the host soon divided, one portion, under Brennus, marching south on Delphi: the other division, under Leonorius and Luterius, turned eastward and overran Thrace, the country round Byzantium. Shortly afterwards they were joined by the small remnants of the army of Brennus, who was repulsed by the Greeks, and killed himself in despair. In 278 B.C., 20,000 Gauls, under Leonorius, Luterius, and fifteen other chieftains, crossed over to Asia Minor, in two divisions. On reuniting they assisted Nicomedes I, King of Bithynia, to defeat his younger brother; and as a reward for their services he gave them a large tract of country, in the heart of Asia Minor, henceforward to be known as Galatia.

The Galatians consisted of three tribes:

• the Tolistboboii, on the west, with Pessinus as their chief town;
• the Tectosages, in the centre, with their capital Ancyra; and
• the Trocmi, on the east, round their chief town Tavium.

Each tribal territory was divided into four cantons or tetrarchies. Each of the twelve tetrarchs had under him a judge and a general. A council of the nation consisting of the tetararchs and three hundred senators was periodically held at a place called Drynemeton, twenty miles southwest of Ancyra.

That these people were Gauls (and not Germans as has sometimes been suggested) is proved by the testimony of Greek and Latin writers, by their retention of the Gallic language till the fifth century, and by their personal and place names. A tribe in the west of Gaul in the time of Caesar (Bell. Gall., VI, xxiv) was called Tectosages. In Tolistoboii we have the root of the word Toulouse, and in Boii the well known Gallic tribe. Brennus probably meant prince; and Strabo says he was called Prausus, which in Celtic means terrible. Luterius is the same as the Celtic Lucterius, and there was a British saint called Leonorius. Other names of chieftains are of undoubted Gallic origin, e.g. Belgius, Achichorius, Gaezatio-Diastus. Brogoris (same root as Brogitarus, Allobroges), Bitovitus, Eposognatus (compare Caesar's Boduognatus, etc.), Combolomarus (Caesar has Virdomarus, Indutionmarus), Adiorix, Albiorix, Ateporix (like Caresar's Dumnorix, ambbiorix, Vercingetorix), Brogitarus, Deiotarus, etc. Place names are of a similar character, e.g. Drynemeton, the "temple of the oaks" or The Temple, from nemed, "temple" (compare Augustonemetum in Auvergene, and Vernemeton, "the great temple", near Bordeaux), Eccobriga, Rosologiacum, Teutobodiacum, etc. (For a detailed discussion of the question see Lightfoot's "Galatians", dissertation i, 4th ed., London, 1874, 235.)

As soon as these Gauls, or Galatians, had gained a firm footing in the country assigned to them, they began to send out marauding expeditions in all directions. They became the terror of their neighbours, and levied contributions on the whole of Asia Minor west of the Taurus. They fought with varying success against Antiochus, King of Syria, who was called Soter from his having saved his country from them. At length Attlaus I, King of Pergamun, a friend of the Romans, drove them back and confined them to Galatia about 235-232 B.C. After this many of them became mercenary soldiers; and in the great battle of Magnesia, 180 B.C., a body of such Galatian troops fought against the Romans, on the side of Antiochus the Great, King of Syria. He was utterly defeated by the Romans, under Scipio Asiaticus, and lost 50,000 of his men. Next year the Consul Manlius entered Galatia, and defeated the Galatians in two battles graphically described by Livy, XXXVIII, xvi. These events are referred to in I Mach., viii. On account of ill-treatment received at the hands of Mithradates I King of Pontus, the Galatians took the side of Pompey in the Mitradatic wars (64 B.C.). As a reward for their services, Deiotarus, their chief tetrarch, received the title of king, and his dominions were greatly extended. Henceword the Galatians were under the protection of the Romans, and were involved in all the troubles of the civil wars that followed. They supported Pompey against Julius Caesar at the battle of Pharsalia (48 B.C.). Amyntas, their last king was set up by Mark Antony, 39 B.C. His kingdom finally included not only Galatia Proper but also the great plains to the south, together with parts of Lyesonia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Phrygia, i.e. the country containing the towns Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. Amyntas went to Actium, 31 B.C., to support Mark Antony; but like many others he went over, at the critical moment, to the side of Octavianus, afterwards called Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in his kingdom, which he retained until he was slain in ambush, 25 B.C. After the death of Amyntas, Augustus made this kingdom into the Roman province of Galatia, so that this province had ben in existence more than 75 years when St. Paul wrote to the Galatians.

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH GALATIAN THEORIES

St. Paul addresses his letter to the churches of Galatia (Gal., i, 2) and calls them Galatians (Gal, iii, 1); and in I Cor., vi, 1, he speaks of the collections which he ordered to be made in the churches of Galatia. But there are two theories as to the meaning of these terms. It is the opinion of Lipsius, Lightfoot, Davidson, Chase, Findlay, etc., that the Epistle was addressed to the people of Galatia Proper, situated in the centre of Asia Minor, towards the north (North Galatian Theory). Others, such as Renan, Perrot, Weizsacker, Hausrath, Zahn, Pfleiderer, Gifford, Rendell, Holtzmann, Clemen, Ramsay, Cornely, Page, Knowling, etc., hold that it was addressed to the southern portion of the Roman province of Galatia, containing Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which were visited by Saints Paul and Barnabas, during their first missionary journey (South Galatian Theory).

Lightfoot was the chief upholder of the North-Galatian theory; but a great deal has become known about the geography of Asia Minor since he wrote in the eighteenth century, and the South-Galatian Theory has proportionately gained ground. A German Catholic professor, Stinmann (Der Liserkreis des Galaterbriefes), has, however, recently (1908) given Lightfoot his strong support, though it must be admitted that he has done little more than emphasize and expand the arguments of Chase. The great coryphaeus of the South-Galatian theory is Prof. Sire W.M. Ramsay. The following is a brief summary of the principal arguments on both sides.

(1) The fact that the Galatians were being changed so soon to another gospel is taken by Lightfoot as evidence of the characteristic fickleness of the Gauls. Ramsay replies that tenacity in matters of religion has ever been characteristic of the Celts. Besides, it is precarious to argue from the political mobility of the Gauls, in the time of Caesar, to the religious inconsistency of Galatians, whose ancestors left the West four hundred years before. The Galatians received St. Paul as an angel from heaven (Gal., iv, 14). Lightfoot sees in this enthusiastic reception proof of Celtic fickleness of character. In the same way it may be proved that the 5000 converted by St. Peter at Jerusalem, and, in fact, that, nearly all the converts of St. Paul were Celts. Acts (xiii-xiv) gives sufficient indications of fickleness in South Galatia. To take but one instance: at Lystra the multitude could scarcely be restrained from sacrificing to St. Paul; shortly afterwards they stoned him and left him for dead.

(2) St. Paul warns the Galatians not to abuse their liberty from the obligations of the Law of Moses, by following the works of the flesh. He then gives a long catalogue of vices. From this Lightfoot selects two (methai, komoi) as evidently pointing to Celtic failings. Against this it may be urged that St. Paul, writing to the Romans (xiii, 13), exhorts them to avoid these two very vices. St. Paul, in giving such an enumeratio here and elsewhere, evidently does not intend to paint the peculiar failings of any race, but simply to reprobate the works of the flesh, of the carnal or lower man; "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God" (Gal., v. 21).

(3) Witchcraft is also mentioned in this list. The extravagant devotion of Deiotarus, says Lightfoot, "fully bears out the character ascribed to the parent race." But the Emperor Tiberius and many officials in the empire were ardent devotees of augury. Sorcery is coupled by St. Paul with idolatry, and it was its habitual ally not only amongst the Gauls but throughout the pagan world.

(4) Lightfoot says that the Galatians were drawn to Jewish observances; and he takes this as evidence of the innate Celtic propensity to external ceremonial, "appealing rather to the senses and passions than the heart and mind." This so-called racial characteristic may be questioned, and it is a well-known fact that the whole of the aboriginal inhabitants of Asia Minor were given over heart and soul to gross pagan cermonial. We do not gather from the Epistle that the Galatians were naturally attracted to Jewish ceremonies. They were only puzzled or rather dazed (iii, 1) by the specious arguments of the Judaizers, who endeavoured to persuade them that they were not as perfect Christians as if they adopted circumcision and the Law of Moses.

(5) On the South-Galatian theory it is supposed that the Epistle was written soon after St. Paul's second visit to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, etc. (Acts, xvi). Lightfoot makes use of a strong argument against this early date. He shows, by a detailed examination, that the Epistle bears a close resemblance, both in argument and language, to parts of the Epistle to the Romans. This he thinks can be accounted for only on the supposition that both were written about the same time, and, therefore, several years later than the date required for the South-Galatian view. To this date required for the South-Galatian view. To this Rendell (Expositor's Greek Test., London, 1903.p. 144) replies that the coincidence is not due to any similarity in the circumstances of the two communities. "Still less can the identity of language be fairly urged to prove an approximation of the two epistles. For these fundamental truths formed without doubt the staple of the Apostle's teaching throughout the years of continuous transition from Jewish to Christian doctrine, and his language in regard to them could not fail to become in some measure stereotyped."

(6) The controversy has raged most fiercely round the two verses in Acts, xvi, 6 and xviii, 23, the only places where there is any reference to Galatia in Acts:

• "And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region" (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran);
• "he departed and went through the Galatian region and Phrygia" (or "Phrygian") (ten Galatiken choran kai phyrgian).

Lightfoot held that Galatia Proper was meant in the second. Other supporters of the North-Galatian theory think that the countries of North Galatia and Phrygia are meant in both cases. Their opponents, relying on the expression of contemporary writers, maintain that South Galatia was intended in both places. The former also interpret the second part of xvi, 6 (Greek text) as meaning that the travellers went through Phrygia and Galatia after they had passed through South Galatia, because they were forbidden to preach in Asia. Ramsey, on the other hand, maintains that after they had passed through the portion of Phrygia which had been added to the southern part of the province of Galatia (and which could be called indifferently Galatian or Phrygian) they passed to the north because they were forbidden to preach in Asia. He holds that the order of the verbs in the passage is in the order of time, and he gives examples of similar use of the aorist participle (St. Paul The Traveller, London, 1900, pp. ix, 211, 212).

The arguments on both sides are too technical to be given in a short article. The reader may be referred to the following: North-Galatian: Chase, "Expositor", Dec. 1893. p.401, May, 1894, p.331; Steinmann, "Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes" (Münster, 1908), p. 191. On the South-Galatian side: Ramsey, "Expositor", Jan., 1894, p. 42, Feb., p. 137, Apr., p. 288, "St. Paul The Traveller", etc; Knowling, "Acts of the Apostles", Additional note to ch. xviii (Expositor's Greek Test., London, 1900, p. 399); Gifford, "Expositor", July, 1894, p. I.

(7) The Galatian churches were evidently important ones. On the North-Galatian theory, St. Luke dismissed their conversion in a single sentence: "They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region" (Acts, xvi, 6). This is strange, as his plan throughout is to give an account of the establishment of Christianity by St. Paul in each new region. Lightfoot fully admits the force of this, but tries to evade it by asking the question: "Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel?" But the subsequent failings of the Corinthians did not prevent St. Luke from giving an account of their conversion. Besides, the Galatians had not swerved so widely from the purity of the Gospel. The arguments of the judaizers made some of them waver, but they had not accepted circumcision; and this Epistle confirmed them in the Faith, so that a few years later St. Paul writes of them to the Corinthians (I Cor., xvi, 1): "Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also." It was long after the time that St. Paul could thus confidently command the Galatians that Acts was written.

(8) St. Paul makes no mention of this collection in our Epistle. According to the North-Galatian theory, the Epistle was written several years before the collection was made. In Acts, xx, 4, etc., a list is given of those who carried the collections to Jerusalem. There are representatives from South Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia; but there is no deputy from North Galatia -- from the towns of Jerusalem on occasion, the majority probably meeting at Corinth, St. Paul, St. Luke, and Sopater of Berea (probably representing Philippi and Achaia; see II Cor., viii, 18-22); Aristarchus and Secundus of Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothyof Lystra (S. Galatia); and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. There is not a word about anybody from North Galatia, the most probable reason being that St. Paul had never been there (see Rendall, Expositor, 1893, vol. II, p.321).

(9) St. Paul, the Roman citizen, invariably employs the names of the roman provincces, such as Achaia, Macedonia, Asia; and it is not probable that he departed from this practice in his use of "Galatia". The people of South Galatia could with propriety be styled Galatians. Two of the towns, Antioch and Lystra, were Roman colonies; and the other two boasted of the Roman names, Claudio-Iconium, and Claudio-Derbe. "Galatians" was an honourable title when applied to them; but they would be insulted if they were called Phrygians or Lycaonians. All admit that St. Peter named the Roman provinces when he wrote "to the elect strangers dispersed throught Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (I Pet., i, 1).

(10) The manner in which St. Paul mentions St. Barnabas in the Epistle indicates that the latter was known to those for whom the Epistle was primarily intended. St. Barnabas had visited South Galatia with St. Paul (Acts, xiii, xiv), but he was unknown in North Galatia.

(11) St. Paul states (ii, 5) that the reason for his course of action at Jerusalem was that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Galatians. This seems to imply that they were already converted. He had visited the southern part of the Galatian province before the council, but not northern. The view favoured above receives confirmation from a consideration, as appended, of the persons addressed.

THE KIND OF PEOPLE ADDRESSED

The country of South Galatia answers the conditions of the Epistle admirably; but this cannot be said of North Galatia. From the Epistle we gather that the majority were Gentile converts, that many were probably Jewish proselytes from their acquaintance with the Old Testament, that Jews who persecuted them from the first were living amongst them; that St. Paul had visited them twice, and that the few Judaziers appeared amongst them only after his last visit. We know from Acts, iii, xiv (and early history), that Jews were settled in South Galatia. During the first missionary journey unbelieving Jews made their presence felt everywhere. As soon as Paul and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch, some Jewish converts came from Judea and taught that the circumcision was necessary for them, and went up to the council, where it was decreed that circumcision and the Law of Moses were not necessary for the Gentiles; but nothing was determined as to the attitude of Jewish converts regarding them, following the example of St. James, though it was implied in the decree that they were matters of indifference. This was shown, soon after, by St. Peter's eating with the Gentiles. On his withdrawing from them, and when many others followed his example, St. Paul publicly vindicated the equality of the Gentile Christians. The majority agreed; but there must have been "false brethren" amongst them (Gal., ii, 4) who were Christians only in name, and who hated St. Paul. Some of these, in all probability, followed him to South Galatia, soon after his second visit. But they could no longer teach the necessity of circumcision, as the Apostolic decrees had been already delivered there by St. Paul (Acts, xvi, 4). These decrees are not mentioned in the Epistle by the Judaizers, the advisability of the Galatians accepting circumcision and the Law of Moses, for their greater perfection. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there were any Jews settled at this time in North Galatia (see Ramsay, "St. Paul The Traveller"). It was not the kind of country to attract them. The Gauls were a dominant class, living in castles, and leading a half pastoral, half nomadic life, and speaking their own Gallic language. The country was very sparsley populated by the subjugated agricultural inhabitants. During the long winter the ground was covered with snow; in summer the heat was intense and the ground parched; and one might travel many miles without meeting a human being. There was some fertile tracts; but the greater part was either poor pasture land, or barren undulating hilly ground. The bulk of the inhabitants in the few towns were not Gauls. Trade was small, and that mainly in wool. A decree of Augustus in favour of Jews was supposed to be framed for those at Ancyra, in Galatia. It is now known that it was addressed to quite a different region.

WHY WRITTEN

The Epistle was written to conteract the influence of a few Judaizers who had come amongst the Galatians, and were endeavouring to persuade them that in order to be perfect Christians it was necessary to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Their arguments were sufficiently specious to puzzle the Galatians, and their object was likely to gain the approval of unbelieving Jews. They said what St. Paul taught was good as far as it went; but that he had not taught the full perfection of Christianity. And this was not surprising, as he was not one of the great Apostles who had been taught by Christ Himself, and received their commission from Him. Whatever St. Paul knew he learned from others, and he had received his commission to preach not from Christ, but from men at Antioch (Acts, xiii). Circumcision and the Law, it is true, were not necessary to salvation; but they were essential to the full perfection of Christianity. This was proved by the example of St. James, of the other Apostles, and of the first disciples, at Jerusalem. On this very point this Paul, the Apostle, placed himself in direct opposition to Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles, at Antioch. His own action in circumcising Timothy showed what he expected of a personal companion, and he was now probably teaching the good of circumcision in other places. These statements puzzles the Galatians, and made them waver. They felt aggrieved that he had left them, as they thought, in an inferior position; they began to observe Jewish festivals, but they had not yet accepted circumcision. The Apostle refutes these arguments so effectively that the question never again arose. Henceforth his enemies confined themselves to personal attacks (see II Corinthians).

CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE

The six chapters naturally fall into three divisions, consisting of two chapters each.

• In the first two chapters, after the general introduction, he shows that he is an Apostle not from men, nor through the teaching of any man, but from Christ; and the gospel he taught is in harmony with the teaching of the great Apostles, who gave him the right hand of fellowship.
• He next (iii, iv) shows the inefficacy of circumcision and the Law, and that we owe our redemption to Christ alone. He appeals to the experience of the Galatian converts, and brings forward proofs from Scripture.
• He exhorts them (v, vi) not to abuse their freedom from the Law to indulge in crimes, "for they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." It is not for love of them he admonishes, that the Judaizers wish the Galatians to be circumcised. If there is virtue in the mere cutting of the flesh, the inference from the argument is that the Judaizers could become still more perfect by making themselves eunuchs -- mutilating themselves like the priests of Cybele. He writes the epilogue in large letters with his own hand.

IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE

As it is admitted on all hands that St. Paul wrote the Epistle, and as its authenticity has never been seriously called in question, it is important not only for its biographical data and direct teaching, but also for the teaching implies in it as being known at the time. He claims, at least indirectly, to have worked miracles amongst the Galatians, and that they received the Holy Ghost (iii, 5), almost in the words of St. Luke as to the events at Iconium (Acts, xiv, 3). It is the Catholic doctrine that faith is a gratuitous gift of God; but is is the teaching of the Church, as it is of St. Paul, that the faith that is of any avail is "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal., v. 6); and he states most emphatically that a good life is necessary for salvation; for, after enumeration the works of the flesh, he writes (v, 21), "Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall obtain the kingdom of God." In vi, 8, he writes: "For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh, also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting." The same teaching is found in others of his Epistles, and is in perfect agreement with St. James: "For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead" (James, ii, 26). The Epistle implies that the Galatians were well acquainted with the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Incarnation, Redemption, Baptism, Grace, etc. As he had never to defend his teaching to these points against Judaizers, and as the Epistle is so early, it is clear that his teaching was identical with that of the Twelve, and did not, even in appearance, lend itself to attack.

DATE OF THE EPISTLE

(1)Marcion asserted that it was the first of St. Paul's Epistles. Prof. Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, Aug., 1895, etc.) and a Catholic professor, Dr. Valentin Weber (see below), maintain that it was written from Antioch, before the council (A.D. 49-50). Weber's arguments are very plausible, but not quite convincing. There is a good summary of them in a review by Gayford, "Journal of Theological Studies", July, 1902. The two visits to Galatia are the double journey to Derbe and back. This solution is offered to obviate apparent discrepancies between Gal., ii, and Acts, xv.

(2) Cornel and the majority of the upholders of the South-Galatian theory suppose, with much greater probability, that it was written about A.D. 53, 54.

(3) Those who defend the North-Galatian theory place it as late as A.D. 57 or 58.

DIFFICULTIES OF GALATIANS II AND I

(a) "I went up . . . and communicated to them the gospel . . . lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain." This does not imply any doubt about the truth of his teaching, but he wanted to neutralize the oppostion of the Judaizers by proving he was at one one with the others.

(b) The following have the appearance of being ironical: "I communicated . . . to them who seemed to be some thing" (ii, 2); But of them who seemed to be something . . . for to me they that seemed to be something added to nothing" (ii, 6): "But contrawise . . . James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars." Here we have three expressions tois dokousin in verse 2; ton dokounton einai ti, and oi dokountes in verse 6; and oi dokountes styloi einai in verse 9. Non-Catholic scholars agree with St. John Chrystostom that there is nothing ironical in the original context. As the verbs are in the present tense, the translations should be: "those who are in repute"; "who are (rightly) regarded as pillars". It is better to understand, with Rendall, that two classes of persons are meant: first, the leading men at Jerusalem; secondly, the three apostles. St. Paul's argument was to show that his teaching had the approval of the great men. St. James is mentioned first because the Judaizers made the greatest use of his name and example. "But of them who are in repute (what they were some time, it is nothing to me. God accepteth not the person of man)", verse 6. St. Augustine is almost alone in his interpretation that it made no matter to St. Paul that the Apostles were once poor ignorant men. Others hold that St. Paul was referring to the privilege of being personal disciples of our Lord. He said that did not alter the fact of his Apostolate, as God does not regard the person of men. Most probably this verse does not refer to the Apostles at all; and Cornerly supposes that St. Paul is speaking of the elevated position held by the presbyters at the council, and insists that it did not derogate from his Apostolate.

(c) "I withstood Cephas." -- "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blamed [kategnosmenos, perf. part. -- not, "to be blamed", as in the Vulgate]. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were done, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (ii, 11-14).

Here St. Peter was found fault with probably by the Greek converts. He did not withdraw on account of bodily fear, says St. John Chrystostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His ususal manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many years previously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine. He had motives like those which induced St. Paul to circumcise Timothy, etc.; and there is no proof that in acting upon them he committed the slightest sin. Those who came from James probably came for no evil purpose; nor does it follow they were sent by him. The Apostles in their letter (Acts, xv,24) say: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you . . . to whom we gave no commandment." We need not suppose that St. Peter foresaw the effect of his example. The whole thing must have taken some time. St. Paul did not at first object. It was only when he saw the result that he spoke. The silence of St. Peter shows that he must have agreed with St. Paul; and, indeed, the argument to the Galatians required that this was the case. St. Peter's exalted position is indicated by the manner in which St. Paul says (i, 18) that he went to behold Peter, as people go to view some remarkable sight; and by the fact that in spite of the preaching of St. Paul and Barnabas for a long time at Antioch, his mere withdrawal was sufficient to draw all after him, and in a manner compel the Gentiles to be circumcised. In the expression "when I saw that they walked not uprightly", they does not necessarily include St. Peter. The incident is not mentioned in the Acts, as it was only transitory. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xii) says that St. Clement of Alexandria, in the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis (Outlines), asserts that this Cephas was not the Apostle, but one of the seventy disciples. Clement here has few followers.

A very spirited controversy was carried on between St. Jerome and St. Augustine about the interpretation of this passage. In his "Commentary on the Galatians", St. Jerome, following earlier writers such as Origen and St. Chrysostom, supposed that the matter was arranged beforehand between St. Peter and St. Paul. They agreed that St. Peter should withdraw and that St. Paul should publicly reprehend him, for the instruction of all. Hence St. Paul says that he withstood him in appearance (kata prosopon). Otherwise, says St. Jerome, with what face could St. Paul, who became all things to all men, who became a Jew that he might gain the Jews, who circumcised Timothy, who shaved his head, and was ready to offer sacrifice at Jerusalem, blame St. Peter for acting in a similar manner? St. Augustine, laying stress on the words "when I saw that they walked not uprightly", etc., maintained that such an interpretation would be subversive of the truth of Holy Scripture. But against this it may be said that it is not so very clear that St. Peter was included in this sentence. The whole controversy can be read in the first volume of the Venetian edition of St. Jerome's works, Epp., lvi, lxvii, civ, cv, cxii, cxv, cxvi.

(d) Apparent Discrepancies between the Epistle and Acts. -- (1) St. Paul says that three years after his conversion (after having visited Arabia and returned to Damascus) he went up to Jerusalem (i, 17, 18) Acts states that after his baptism "he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days" (ix, 19). "He immediately began to preach in the synagogues" (ix, 20). "He increased more in strength, and confounded the Jews" (ix, 22). "And when many days were passed, the Jews consulted together to kill him" (ix, 23); he then escaped and went to Jerusalem. These accounts here are not contradictory, as has been sometimes objected; but were written from different points of view and for different purposes. The time for the visit to Arabia may be placed between Acts, ix, 22 and 23; or between "some days" and "many days". St. Luke's "many days" (hemerai ikanai) may mean as much as three years. (See III Kings, ii, 38; so Paley, Lightfoot, Knowling, Lewin.) The adjective ikanos is a favourite one with St. Luke, and is used by him with great elasticity, but generally in the sense of largeness, e.g. "a widow: and a great multitude of the city" (Luke, vii, 12); "there met him a certain man who had a devil now a very long time" (Luke, viii, 27); "a herd of many swine feeding" (Luke, viii, 32); "and he was abroad for a long time" (Luke, xx, 9); "for a long time, he had bewitched them" (Acts, viii, 11). See also Acts, xiv, 3, 21 (Greek text); xviii, 18, xix, 19, 26; xx, 37.

(2) We read in Acts, ix, 27, that St. Barnabas took St. Paul "to the apostles". St. Paul states (Gal., i, 19) that on this occasion, besides St. Peter, "other of the apostles I saw one, saving James the brother of the Lord". Those who find a contradiction here are hard to satisfy. St. Luke employs the word Apostles sometimes in a broader, sometimes in a narrower sense. Here it meant the Apostles who happened to be at Jerusalem (Peter and James), or the assembly over which they presided. The objection can be pressed with any force only against those who deny that St. James was an Apostle in any of the senses used by St. Luke (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD).

One of the best critical commentaries on Galatians is CORNELY, commentarius in S. Pauli Epistolam ad Galatas in the Cursus Scriptura Sacrae (Paris, 1892). Other useful Catholic commentaries are the well-known works of A LAPIDE, ESTIUS, BISPING, PALMIERI, MACEVILLY.
PATRISTIC LITERATURE; There are commentaries on the Epistle by AMBROSIASTER, ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. CHRYSOSTOM, ST. JEROME, (ECUMENIUS, PELAGIUS, PRIMASIUS, THEODORET, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (a fragment), and THEOPHYLACT (all in Migne), and by ST. THOMA AQUINAS (many editions of St. Paul's Epistles).
CRITICAL EDITIONS IN ENGLISH: LIGHTFOOT, Galatians (4th ed., London, 1874); RAMSAY, Historical Commentary on Galatians (London, 1900): RENDALL, Galatians in Expositor's Greek Test., III (London, 1903).
FOR NORTH-GALATIAN THEORY: LIGHTFOOT (supra); CHASE in Expositor, Dec., 1893, May, 1894; FINDLAY in Expository Times, VII; CHEETHAM in Classical Review, vol. III (London, 1894): SCHMIEDEL, Galatia in Encyc. Bibl.; BELSER, Die Selbstvertheidigung des heiligen Paulus (Freiburg, 1896); STEINMANN, Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes (Munster, 1908) contains a very full biblography.
FOR SOUTH-GALATIAN THEORY: RAMSAY in Expositor, Jan., Feb., Apr., Aug., 1894, July 1895; IDEM in Expository Times, VII; IDEM, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1900); IDEM, St. Paul the Traveller (London, 1900); IDEM in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; KNOWLING, Acts of the Apostles (additional note to ch. xviii) in Expositor's Greek Test. (London, 1900); RENDALL, op. cit. above; IDEM in Expositor, Nov., 1893, Apr., 1894; GIFFORD in Expositor, July, 1894; BACON in Expositor,1898, 1899; WOODHOUSE, Galatia in Encyc. Bibl,; WEBER, Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefes von dem Apostelkonzil (Ratisbon, 1900); IDEM, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (Ratisbon, 1900); IDEM, Das Datum des Galaterbriefes (Passau, 1900); IDEM in Katholik (1898-99), Die theol.-praki. Monatsschrift, and Die Zeitschrift fur kath. Theolgie.

C. AHERNE

Pietro Colonna Galatino

Friar Minor, philosopher, theologian, Orientalist; b. at Galatia (now Cajazzo) in Apulia; d. at Rome, soon after 1539; received the habit as early as 1480, studied Oriental languages in Rome and was appointed lector at the convent of Ara Coeli; he also held the office of provincial in the province of Bari, and that of penitentiary under Leo X. Galatino wrote his chief work "De Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis", at the request of the pope, the emperor, and other dignitaries, in 1516, at which time, owing mainly to John Reuchlin's "Augenspiegel", the famous controversy on the authority of the Jewish writings was assuming a very menacing aspect. Galatino took up Reuchlin's defence. Resolved to combat the Jews on their own ground, he turned the Cabbala against them, and sought to convince them that their own books yielded ample proof of the truth of the Christian religion, hence their opposition to it should be branded as obstinacy. He gave his work the form of a dialogue. The two conflicting Christian parties were represented by Capnio (Reuchlin) and the Inquisitor Hochstraten, O.P. In conciliatory terms, Galatino responded to the queries and suggestions of the former, and refuted the objections of the latter. He had borrowed largely from the "Pugio Fidei" of the Dominican Raymond Martini, remodelling, however, the material and supplementing it with copious quotations from the "Zohar" and the "Gale Razayya".

In a long letter to Paul III (MS. Vat. Libr., cod. Ottob. Lat. 2366, fol. 300-308) he vehemently defended himself and his party against the charge of having forged the last-named book, which he firmly held to be the work of "Rabbenu ha-Kadosh". Galatino was aware, no less than his critics, that his "De Arcanis Cath. Ver." had many shortcomings, both in matter and form, and he begged his readers to consider that he was compelled to finish it within the space of a year and a half. The work became very popular and ran through several editions. For the rest, Galatino's extensive knowledge and his thorough acquaintance with Greek, Hebrew, and Jewish Aramaic is fully borne out by his numerous other unpublished writings. In bold language he inveighs against the corruption among the clergy and discusses the question of reform. While engaged on his remarkable work "De Vera Theologia" his strength threatened to fail him by reason of his great age and infirmity, but, having taken a vow to defend in the course of this work the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, he instantly, so he tells us, recovered his strength and health (MSS. 52, 54, 60, St. Isidore's Coll.). In 1539, Paul III, in a special Bull, bequeathed Galatino's works, about thirty in number, to the convent of Ara Coeli and enjoined that special care be taken of them. The MSS. are now preserved in various Roman archives.

THOMAS PLASSMANN

Valerius Maximianus Galerius

Galerius, a native of Illyria, was made Caesar 1 March, 293, by Diocletian, whose daughter Valeria he married and who in turn adopted her husband. The latter began his career as an illiterate shepherd, was a man of violent character, fond of pleasure and politically insignificant; but he was an efficient soldier and a loyal and devoted henchman of Diocletian. When about this time the latter divided the empire between the two Augusti, Diocletian and Maximinian, and their two Caesars, Galerius received the countries on the Danube. His official residence was at Sirmium, but he was especially active in the East, Diocletian's share of the empire. From 293 to 295 he conducted campaigns against the Germans on the lower Danube and defeated them repeatedly. On the other hand, he was vanquished at Carrhae by the Persians, who under King Narses had invaded the Roman territory. He retrieved himself, however, in a second battle to such good purpose that he forced a treaty which gave the Romans the greatest expansion of empire they ever secured in the East. To Galerius are ascribed the four edicts against the Christians published after 303 by Diocletian, who was himself a strong believer in the heathen superstitions. The Christians had been constantly increasing, both among the soldiers and the civil officials. Magnificent churches were being erected in the large cities, and the time seemed not far distant when the new religion would gain the ascendancy over the old. Christianity had, therefore, to be rooted out, the Holy Scriptures abolished, the churches destroyed, and the cemeteries confiscated. The Christians themselves were degraded to the condition of pariahs. The edicts, ever increasing in severity, were enforced much more strictly in the East where Galerius was in command than in the West. It was in the East that the decisive struggle between paganism and Christianity was fought out. When Diocletian voluntarily abandoned the imperial throne at Nicomedia in May, 305, he named Galerius his successor. The latter thenceforth passed most of his time in Illyricum.

Constantius Chlorus, the Caesar in Gaul, who was older than Galerius, was really his superior in mental gifts. At the death of Constantius in 306 the soldiers in Britain proclaimed his son Constantine, Imperator and Caesar; consequently Galerius was forced to recognize him. When Maxentius, son of the retired Emperor Maximian, and son-in-law of Galerius, had been chosen Caesar by the Senate and the Praetorians, dissatisfied with Galerius's extension to Rome of provincial taxation, the latter led an army against Rome to uphold the partition of the empire as ordained by Diocletian. But some of his troops deserted him, and Severus, whom he had appointed ruler of the Western Empire with the title of Augustus, was killed at the instigation of Maxentius. Meanwhile at Carnuntum Valerius Licinianus Licinius, a countryman and friend of Galerius, was proclaimed Caesar of the Western Empire. Nevertheless, Galerius was unable to master the situation either in Italy or the East, and never attained the supreme imperial dignity which Diocletian had held. One part of the empire after the other rebelled and became autonomous. He finally ceased his persecution of the Christians, for the sanguinary character of which he was personally responsible; it had lasted eight years and had disgusted even the pagan population. Menaced by the alliance between Constantine and Maxentius, he issued an edict 30 April, 311, in Nicomedia permitting the Christians to practice their religion without let or hindrance. A few days later Galerius died on the Danube. The Christian authors of his time, Lactantius in particular, condemned him violently as the author of the last great persecution of the Christians.

CLINTON, Fasti, Romani, II; GOYAU, Chronologie de l empire romain (Paris --); BERNHARD, Politische Geschichte Roms von Valerian bis Diocletian; BURCKHARDT, Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen (3d ed., 1898); SCHILLER, Geschichte der romanischen Kaiserzeit (2 vols., Gotha, 1883); SEECK, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (2 vols., Berlin, 1897).

KARL HOEBER

Joseph Galien

Dominican, professor of philosophy and theology at the University of Avignon, meteorologist, physicist, and writer on aeronautics; b. 1699, at Saint-Paulien, near Le Puy, in Southern France; d. 1762 in the Dominican monastery at Le Puy—or, according to other accounts, in 1782 at Avignon. He entered the order at Le Puy. He studied philosophy and theology at the Dominican institution in Avignon with such success that he was sent to Bordeaux as professor of philosophy as early as 1726. From the year 1745 on he held the chair of theology at Avignon, and from 1747 the chair of philosophy. He seems to have resigned his professorship in 1751 to devote his energies entirely to the study of meteorology and physics. He published: "Lettres théologiques touchant l'état de pure nature, la distinction du naturel et du sur-naturel, et les autres matières qui en sont de conséquences" (Avignon, 1745); also the "Explication physique des effets de l'électricité" (Avignon, 1747). But Galien's most important contribution was a booklet that he issued anonymously in 1755 at Avignon under the title: "Mémoire touchant la nature et la formation de la grêle et des autres météores qui y ont rapport, avec une conséquence ultérieure de la possibilité de naviger [sic] dans l'air à la hauteur de la région de la grêle. Amusement physique et géométrique". The second edition of this booklet, this time with the name of its author, appeared as early as 1757. The change in its title renders it easy to discern what made the monograph so interesting. It was now called: "L'art de naviguer dans les airs, amusement physique et géométrique, précédé d'un mémoire sur la formation de la grêle." After propounding his theory regarding hail storms, Galien calculates how large an air- ship would have to be in order to transport an entire army with its equipment to Africa. His scheme was to construct a gigantic cube- shaped vessel of good, strong canvas of double thickness plastered with wax and tar, covered with leather and reinforced in places with ropes and rigging; its edge was to be 1000 toises (roughly 6,500 feet), and each surface 1,000,000 sq. toises (approx. 42,250,000 sq. feet) in area. In both length and breadth it would be larger than the city of Avignon, and would resemble a fair-sized mountain. This vessel would have to float in the atmospheric strata of the hail belt, as the atmosphere there is a thousand times lighter than water, while in the strata above this, into which the top of the cube would extend, the air is two thousand times lighter than water. For the scientific principles of his proposal Galien relied on Lana, S.J., perhaps also on Schott, S.J. His chief claim to importance lies in the fact that the Montgolfier brothers were acquainted with him, or at least his booklet. His birthplace was very near to theirs, and like Galien the Montgolfiers began with meteorological observations; moreover, the elder of the brothers made a first ascension at Avignon in 1782. In aeronautical works Galien is, for the most part, unfairly treated; as the writers assume that his scheme was meant seriously, contrary to his statement given on the title page.

B. WILHELM

Galilee

(Sept. and N.T. Galilaia).

The native land of Jesus Christ, where He began His ministry and performed many of His works, and whence He drew His Apostles. Orginally, the Hebrew word Gâlîl, derived from gâlal, "to roll", meant a circle or district, and in its feminine and plural forms was applied indifferently to several regions in Palestine. The simple term Gâlîl (Galilee) occurs first in Jos., xx, 7 (cf. Jos., xxi, 32; and I Par., vi, 76) where it denotes that portion of Nephtali lying to the northeast of Lake Merom, in which lay Cedes, one of the six cities of refuge. In III Kings, ix, 11, the expression "land of Galilee" is used to designate the northern part of Palestine, that embraced the twenty cities given by Solomon to Hiram, King of Tyre. Isaias (ix, 1) gives to "the land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephtali" the name "Galilee of the Nations" (D.V. "Galilee of the Gentiles"), undoubtedly on account of the large Gentile population in that region. As early as the Machabean period, the limits of Galilee had extended to Samaria (I Mach., x, 30), without however including the plain of Jezrael and the territory of Ptolemais (I Mach., xii, 47, 49). The New Testament frequently recognizes it as dividing, with the provinces of Samaria and Judea, all of Western Palestine. Josephus and, more accurately, the Talmudists (cf. Neubauer, "La Géographie du Talmud", Paris, 1868) give its boundaries at this period, as Phoenicia and Coele-Syria on the north; the Jordan valley on the east; Samaria, having En Gannim (modern Jennin) at its frontier, on the south; the Mediterranean and Phoenicia on the west. The territory thus described is naturally divided by a high ridge, at the eastern extremity of which was Caphar Hanan (Kefr 'Anân), into Upper Galilee, embracing ancient Nephtali and the northern part of Asher, and Lower Galilee, embracing ancient Zabulon and parts of Asher and Issachar. Although mountain ranges extend throughout the territory, rising to a height of 4000 feet in Upper, and to 1800 feet in Lower Galilee, the land is very productive, especially in the southern division where the valleys and plains are greater, and is capable of sustaining a very large population.

Josue (xix, 10-39) names 69 important Canaanite towns and cities, existing in the conquered territory allotted to the Hebrew tribes of Nephtali, Zabulon, Asher, and Issachar. Josephus (Vita, 45) counted 204 prosperous villages and 15 fortified cities in the Galilee of his time. Now its population is small, and for the most part scattered among miserable villages and mud hamlets. Safed, one of the four sacred cities of Palestine revered by Jews, which has a population of about 15,000, of whom 9000 are Jews, is the principal city in the north. Nazareth, a Christian city (about 10,000), is the chief city in the south. The deportation of Jews by Theglathphalasar (Tiglath-Pileser), 734 B. C., gave an overwhelming predominance to the Gentile elements noted in the population by Isaias. Although the Jews multiplied rapidly in Galilee after the Babylonian exile, they were oppressed by the heathen as late as the Machabean period (I Mach., v, 45-54), and did not prevail until the first century before Christ. As results of their long intercourse with the conquered Canaanites, and Phoenician, Syrian, and Greek immigrants, and their separation from their brethren in Judea by interlying Samaria, they spoke a dialect and had peculiarities in business, family and religious customs, that brought upon them the contempt of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Under the Roman Empire both Christianity and Judaism flourished there, as is evidenced by the ruins of numerous synagogues, churches, and monasteries belonging to that period that were destroyed by the Moslems. There are also notable ruins of churches and monasteries erected by the Crusaders, who restored Christianity in Palestine in the twelfth century, and were not finally overcome until 1291, when Acre in Galilee, their last stronghold, was taken by the Moslems. The territory is now a Turkish possession belonging to the vilayet of Beirut. The people are divided in their religious beliefs. Catholics of the Latin, Greek, and Maronite Rites, Orthodox Greeks, and Druses live side by side with Moslems. Near Safed there are several modern Jewish colonies.

Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land (London, 1885); Palestine Explorations Fund, Memoirs I (1881); Merrill, Galilee in the time of Christ (London, 1891); von Schürer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ (New York, 1885); Guérin, Galilée (2 vols., Paris, 1880).

A.L. MCMAHON

Alessandro Galilei

An eminent Florentine architect; born 1691; died 1737.

Having attained some distinction, he was invited by several noblemen to accompany them to England, where he resided seven years. Afterwards he returned to Tuscany and was appointed state architect by the Grand Dukes Cosmo III and Giovanni Gastone. He does not seem to have erected anything remarkable either in England or Tuscany. His abilities, however, were made manifest at Rome, to which place he had been invited by Clement XII. He designed the façade of S. Giovanni de' Fiorentini (1734), and the great façade of S. Giovanni in Laterano. The latter was the result of a competition set on foot by Clement XII. Of twenty-one designs sent in, that of Galilei was accepted an carried out. He also designed the Corsini chapel in the same edifice. Galilei has been much criticized on the ground that his arrangement of the orders was not correct, but his treatment of the ornamental parts is considered admirable. He was well versed in mathematics, and possessed many other valuable acquirements.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Galileo Galilei

Generally called GALILEO. Born at Pisa, 18 February, 1564; died 8 January, 1642.

His father, Vincenzo Galilei, belonged to a noble family of straitened fortune, and had gained some distinction as a musician and mathematician. The boy at an early age manifested his aptitude for mathematical and mechanical pursuits, but his parents, wishing to turn him aside from studies which promised no substantial return, destined him for the medical profession. But all was in vain, and at an early age the youth had to be left to follow the bent of his native genius, which speedily placed him in the very first rank of natural philosophers.

It is the great merit of Galileo that, happily combining experiment with calculation, he opposed the prevailing system according to which, instead of going directly to nature for investigation of her laws and processes, it was held that these were best learned by authority, especially by that of Aristotle, who was supposed to have spoken the last word upon all such matters, and upon whom many erroneous conclusions had been fathered in the course of time. Against such a superstition Galileo resolutely and vehemently set himself, with the result that he not only soon discredited many beliefs which had hitherto been accepted as indisputable, but aroused a storm of opposition and indignation amongst those whose opinions he discredited; the more so, as he was a fierce controversialist, who, not content with refuting adversaries, was bent upon confounding them. Moreover, he wielded an exceedingly able pen, and unsparingly ridiculed and exasperated his opponents. Undoubtedly he thus did much to bring upon himself the troubles for which he is now chiefly remembered. As Sir David Brewster (Martyrs of Science) says, "The boldness, may we not say the recklessness, with which Galileo insisted on making proselytes of his enemies, served but to alienate them from the truth."

Although in the popular mind Galileo is remembered chiefly as an astronomer, it was not in this character that he made really substantial contributions to human knowledge -- as is testified by such authorities as Lagrange, Arago, and Delambre -- but rather in the field of mechanics, and especially of dynamics, which science may be said to owe its existence to him. Before he was twenty, observation of the oscillations of a swinging lamp in the cathedral of Pisa led him to the discovery of the isochronism of the pendulum, which theory he utilized fifty years later in the construction of an astronomical clock. In 1588, a treatise on the centre of gravity in solids obtained for him the title of the Archimedes of his time, and secured him a lecture-ship in the University of Pisa. During the years immediately following, taking advantage of the celebrated leaning tower, he laid the foundation experimentally of the theory of falling bodies and demonstrated the falsity of the peripatetic maxim, hitherto accepted without question, that their rate of descent is proportional to their weight. This at once raised a storm on the part of the Aristoteleans, who would not accept even facts in contradiction of their master's dicta. Galileo, in consequence of this and other troubles, found it prudent to quit Pisa and betake himself to Florence, the original home of his family. By the influence of friends with the Venetian Senate he was nominated in 1592 to the chair of mathematics in the University of Padua, which he occupied for eighteen years, with ever-increasing renown. He afterwards betook himself to Florence, being appointed philosopher and mathematician extraordinary to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. During the whole of this period, and to the close of his life, his investigation of Nature, in all her fields, was unwearied. Following up his experiments at Pisa with others upon inclined planes, Galileo established the laws of falling bodies as they are still formulated. He likewise demonstrated the laws of projectiles, and largely anticipated the laws of motion as finally established by Newton. He studied the properties of the cycloid and attempted the problem of its quadrature; while in the "infinitesimals", which he was one of the first to introduce into geometrical demonstrations, was contained the germ of the calculus. In statics, he gave the first direct and entirely satisfactory demonstration of the laws of equilibrium and the principle of virtual velocities. In hydrostatics, he set forth the true principle of flotation. He invented a thermometer (termometro lento), though a defective one, but he did not, as is sometimes claimed for him, invent the microscope.

Though, as has been said, it is by his astronomical discoveries that he is most widely remembered, it is not these that constitute his most substantial title to fame. In this connection, his greatest achievement was undoubtedly his virtual invention of the telescope. Hearing early in 1609 that a Dutch optician, named Lippershey, had produced an instrument by which the apparent size of remote objects was magnified, Galileo at once realized the principle by which such a result could alone be attained, and, after a single night devoted to consideration of the laws of refraction, he succeeded in constructing a telescope which magnified three times, its magnifying power being soon increased to thirty-two. This instrument being provided and turned towards the heavens, the discoveries, which have made Galileo famous, were bound at once to follow, though undoubtedly he was quick to grasp their full significance. The moon was shown not to be, as the old astronomy taught, a smooth and perfect sphere, of different nature to the earth, but to possess hills and valleys and other features resembling those of our own globe. The planet Jupiter was found to have satellites, thus displaying a solar system in miniature, and supporting the doctrine of Copernicus. It had been argued against the said system that, if it were true, the inferior planets, Venus and Mercury, between the earth and the sun, should in the course of their revolution exhibit phases like those of the moon, and, these being invisible to the naked eye, Copernicus had to advance the quite erroneous explanation that these planets were transparent and the sun's rays passed through them. But with his telescope Galileo found that Venus did actually exhibit the desired phases, and the objection was thus turned into an argument for Copernicanism. Finally, the spots on the sun, which Galileo soon perceived, served to prove the rotation of that luminary, and that it was not incorruptible as had been assumed.

Prior to these discoveries, Galileo had already abandoned the old Ptolemaic astronomy for the Copernican. But, as he confessed in a letter to Kepler in 1597, he had refrained from making himself its advocate, lest like Copernicus himself he should be overwhelmed with ridicule. His telescopic discoveries, the significance of which he immediately perceived, induced him at once to lay aside all reserve and come forward as the avowed and strenuous champion of Copernicanism, and, appealing as these discoveries did to the evidence of sensible phenomena, they not only did more than anything else to recommend the new system to general acceptance, but invested Galileo himself with the credit of being the greatest astronomer of his age, if not the greatest who ever lived. They were also the cause of his lamentable controversy with ecclesiastical authority, which raises questions of graver import than any others connected with his name. It is necessary, therefore, to understand clearly his exact position in this regard.

The direct services which Galileo rendered to astronomy are virtually summed up in his telescopic discoveries, which, brilliant and important as they were, contributed little or nothing to the theoretical perfection of the science, and were sure to be made by any careful observer provided with a telescope. Again, he wholly neglected discoveries far more fundamental than his own, made by his great contemporary Kepler, the value of which he either did not perceive or entirely ignored. Since the first and second of his famous laws were already published by Kepler in 1609 and the third, ten years later, it is truly inconceivable, as Delambre says, that Galileo should not once have made any mention of these discoveries, far more difficult than his own, which finally led Newton to determine the general principle which forms the very soul of the celestial mechanism thus established. It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive, and failed to convince such men as Tycho Brahé (who, however, did not live to see the telescope) and Lord Bacon, who to the end remained an unbeliever. Milton also, who visited Galileo in his old age (1638), appears to have suspended his judgment, for there are passages in his great poem which seem to favour both systems. The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error, and he treated with scorn Kepler's suggestion, foreshadowing Newton's establishment of the true doctrine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors, though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti-Copernican difficulty.

In spite of all deficiency in his arguments, Galileo, profoundly assured of the truth of his cause, set himself with his habitual vehemence to convince others, and so contributed in no small degree to create the troubles which greatly embittered the latter part of his life. In regard to their history, there are two main points to be considered. It is in the first place constantly assumed, especially at the present day, that the opposition which Copernicanism encountered at the hands of ecclesiastical authority was prompted by hatred of science and a desire to keep the minds of men in the darkness of ignorance. To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridiculous, especially a body which, with whatever defects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all. It is likewise contradicted by the history of the very controversy with which we are now concerned. According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficulties were raised on the Catholic side, although Luther and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridicule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, clerical and lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandim, he exhibited the sunspots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not until four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persistence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of the Bible, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputation as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernicanism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brewster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as "a noble and generous reception". The pope now reigning, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo's disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisition.

After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declaration, naturally was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence.

Finally, the famous "E pur si muove", supposed to have been uttered by Galileo, as he rose from his knees after renouncing the motion of the earth, is an acknowledged fiction, of which no mention can be found till more than a century after his death, which took place 8 January 1642, the year in which Newton was born.

Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority and science, to which special theological importance has been attached in connection with the question of papal infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope -- who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope -- and not of the body which calls itself the Church.

And von Gebler ("Galileo Galilei"):

The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.

It may be added that Riceloll and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff.

More vital at the present day is the question with which we commenced: "Does not the condemnation of Galileo prove the implacable opposition of the Church to scientific progress and enlightenment?" It may be replied with Cardinal Newman that this instance serves to prove the opposite, namely that the Church has not interfered with physical science, for Galileo's case "is the one stock argument" (Apologia 5). So too Professor De Morgan acknowledges ("Motion of the Earth" in English Cyclopaedia):

The Papal power must upon the whole have been moderately used in matters of philosophy, if we may judge by the great stress laid on this one case of Galileo. It is the standing proof that an authority which has lasted a thousand years was all the time occupied in checking the progress of thought.

So Dr. Whewell speaking of this same case says (History of the Inductive Sciences):--

I would not be understood to assert the condemnation of new doctrines to be a general or characteristic practice of the Romish Church. Certainly the intelligent and cultivated minds of Italy, and many of the most eminent of her ecclesiastics among them, have been the foremost in promoting and welcoming the progress of science, and there were found among the Italian ecclesiastics of Galileo's time many of the earliest and most enlightened adherents of the Copernican system.

The literature concerning Galileo is abundant. In particular may be mentioned: DE MORGAN, Motion of the Earth in English Cyclopaedia; IDEM in Companion to the British Almanack, 1855; IDEM, Budget of Paradoxes (London, 1872); WHEWELL, History of the Inductive Sciences (3d ed., London, 1857); BREWSTER, Martyrs of Science (London, 1877); VON GEBLER, Galileo Galilei und die romische Curie (tr., London, 1879); GRISAR, Galilei-studien (Ratisbon, 1882); CHOUPIN, Valeur des Decisions Doctrinales et Disciplinaires (Paris, 1907); DE JAUGEY, Le proces de Galilee, etc. (Paris, 1888); LEPINOIS, La question de Galilee (Paris, 1878); VACANDARD, Le proces de Galilee in Revue du clerge francais, 1 and 15 Oct., 1904; WARD in Dublin Review, April, July, 1871; The History of Galileo in the Month, Sept., Oct., 1867l; GERARD, Galileo (Catholic Truth Society); MULLER, Galileo-Galilei (Rome, 1908); IDEM, Galileo Galilei und das kopernikanische Weltsystem in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, suppl. 101.JOHN GERARD

Elizabeth Galitzin

Princess, religious of the Sacred Heart; born at St. Petersburg, 22 February, 1797; died in Louisiana, 8 December, 1843. Her father was Prince Alexis Andrevitch, her mother Countess Protasof, the friend and "second conscience" of Madame Swetchine. When her mother abandoned the creed of the Russian Orthodox Church and embraced the Catholic Faith (a step to which the penalty of exile or death was still attached by Russian law), Princess Elizabeth was roused to bitter hatred of the Catholic Church, and bound herself by oath never to change her religion. But after four years, the influence of her mother's consistency of life and the conversion of other members of the family induced her to examine the question, and finally she too made her submission. Her vocation followed soon after her conversion, and she left it to Father Rozaven to find for her an austere order devoted to education". His choice was the Society of the Sacred Heart. Elizabeth Galitzin received the habit at Metz, in 1826, her first vows were taken in Rome at the Trinità dei Monti, 1828, and her profession took place in Paris, 1832. In 1834, she was named secretary general to the foundress, Blessed Madeleine Sophie Barat, and, in 1839, was elected assistant general and named visitor of the convents of the Sacred Heart in the United States.

Mother Galitzin carried out her duties of assistant general and visitor in a characteristic spirit. Though burning with ardour to attain the best in all religious perfection, her strict ideas of government, and the tendency to dissimulation, which autocratic natures sometimes reveal in the pursuit of their ends, prevented her from acquiring fully the spirit of the constitutions of her order. She made grave mistakes, but the Blessed foundress always willing to make allowances for others, excused them and ever recognized that Mother Galitzin's heart was true to the society. Conscious of the harm she had done in pressing the matter of some changes in the constitutions, Mother Galitzin begged to be sent back to the United States, to restore the original organization of the society. In the midst of an outbreak of yellow fever in Louisiana she nursed the sick with heroic devotedness, until she was herself struck down and died.

JANET STUART

St. Gall

(GALLUS; in the most ancient manuscript he is called GALLO, GALLONUS, GALLUNUS, and sometimes also CALLO, CHELLEH, GILLIANUS, etc.).

An Irishman by birth, he was one of the twelve disciples who accompanied St. Columbanus to Gaul, and established themselves with him at Luxeuil. Gall again followed his magister, in 610, on his voyage on the Rhine to Bregenz; but he separated from him in 612, when Columbanus left for Italy; and he remained in Swabia, where, with several companions, he led the life of a hermit, in a desert to the west of Bregenz, near the source of the river Steinach. There, after his death, was erected an "ecelesia Sancti Galluni" governed by a "presbyter et pastor". Before the middle of the eighth century this church became a real monastery, the first abbot of which was St. Otmar. The monastery was the property of the Diocese of Constance, and it was only in 818 that it obtained from the Emperor Louis the Pious the right to be numbered among the royal monasteries. and to enjoy the privilege of immunity. At last, in 854, it was freed from all obligation whatever towards the See of Constance, and henceforth was attached only by ties of canonical dependence. Called "Abbey of St. Gall", not from the name of its founder and first abbot, but of the saint who had lived in this place and whose relics were honoured there, the monastery played an illustrious part in history for more than a thousand years.

Apart from this authentic history, there exists another version or tradition furnished by the Lives of St. Gall, the most ancient of which does not antedate the end of the eighth century. A portion of the incidents related in these Lives is perhaps true; but another part is certainly legendary, and in formal contradiction to the most ancient charters of the abbey itself. According to these biographies, Gall was ordained a priest in Ireland before his departure for the Continent, therefore before 590. Having reached Bregenz with Columbanus, he laboured in the country as a missionary, and actively combated the pagan superstitions. Prevented by illness from following Columbanus to Italy, he was placed under interdict by the displeased Columbanus, and in consequence could not celebrate Mass until several years later, after the death of his old master. Gall delivered from the demon by which she was possessed Fridiburga, the daughter of Cunzo and the betrothed of Sigebert, King of the Franks; the latter, through gratitude, granted to the saint an estate near Arbon, which belonged to the royal treasury, that he might found a monastery there. Naturally the monastery was exempt from all dependence on the Bishop of Constance; moreover, Gall twice refused the episcopal see of that city, which was offered to him, and having been instrumental in securing the election of a secular cleric, the deacon John, the latter and his successors placed themselves in every way at the service of the abbey. Gall also declined the abbatial dignity of Luxeuil, which was offered him by the monks of the monastery after the death of St. Eustace. Shortly afterwards he died, at the age of ninety-five, at Arbon, during a visit; but his body was brought back to the monastery, and God revealed the sanctity of his servant by numerous miracles. His feast is celebrated on 16 October, the day ascribed to him in some very ancient martyrologies, while Adon, it is not known for what reason, makes it occur on 20 February. The saint is ordinarily represented with a bear; for a legend, recorded in the Lives, relates that one night, at the command of the saint, one of these animals brought wood to feed the fire which Gall and his companions had kindled in the desert.

The most ancient Life, of which only fragments have been discovered till the present date, but otherwise very important, has been remodelled and put in the better style of the ninth century by two monks of Reichenau: in 816-24 by the celebrated Wettinus, and about 833-34 by Walafrid Strabo, who also revised a book of the miracles of the saint, written somewhat earlier by Gozbert the Younger, monk of St. Gall. In 850 an anonymous monk of the same abbey wrote, in verse, a Life which he published under the name of Walafrid; and others after him further celebrated the holy patron in prose and verse.

ALBERT PONCELOT

Abbey of St. Gall

In Switzerland, Canton St. Gall, 30 miles southeast of Constance; for many centuries one of the chief Benedictine abbeys in Europe; founded about 613, and named after Gallus, an Irishman, the disciple and companion of St. Columbanus in his exile from Luxeuil. When his master went on to Italy, Gallus remained in Switzerland, where he died about 646. A chapel was erected on the spot occupied by his cell, and a priest named Othmar was placed there by Charles Martel as custodian of the saint's relics. Under his direction a monastery was built, many privileges and benefactions being upon it by Charles Martel and his son Pepin, who with Othmar as first abbot, are reckoned its principal founders. By Pepin's persuasion Othmar substituted the Benedictine rule for that of St. Columbanus. He also founded the famous schools of St. Gall, and under him and his successors the arts, letters, and sciences were assiduously cultivated. The work of copying manuscripts was undertaken at a very early date, and the nucleus of the famous library gathered together. The abbey gave hospitality to numerous Anglo-Saxon and Irish monks who came to copy manuscripts for their own monasteries. Two distinguished guests of the abbey were Peter and Romanus, chanters from Rome, sent by Pope Adrian I at Charlemagne's request to propagate the use of the Gregorian chant. Peter went on to Metz, where he established an important chant-school, but Romanus, having fallen sick at St. Gall, stayed there with Charlemagne's consent. To the copies of the Roman chant that he brought with him, he added the "Romanian signs", the interpretation of which has since become a matter of controversy, and the school he started at St. Gall, rivalling that of Metz, became one of the most frequented in Europe.

The chief manuscripts produced by it, still extant, are the "Antiphonale Missarum" (no. 339), the "Antiphonarium Sti. Gregorii" (no. 359), and Hartker's "Antiphonarium" (nos. 390-391), the first and third of which have been reproduced in facsimile by the Solesmes fathers in their "Paléographie Musicale". The other schools of the abbey — for the younger monks and for lay scholars attracted thither by the fame of the monastic professors — were founded as early as the ninth century, for the well-known, but unrealized plan of 820 provides separate accommodation for both schools. The domestic history of the community during these centuries of consolidation was not altogether free from troubles. Even during the lifetime of Othmar, the monks had to defend themselves against the bishops of Constance, who, having already secured jurisdiction over the neighbouring Abbey of Reichenau, refused to recognise the exemption and other privileges of St. Gall. For many years the monks had to fight for their independence, but it was not until the time of Louis the Pious that their efforts were crowned with success and their rights confirmed. From that time up to the end of the tenth century was the golden age of the abbey, during which flourished many celebrated scholars — the three Notkers, Eckhard, Hartker and others. The decrees of the Council of Aachen (817) for the furtherance of discipline and the religious spirit were loyally carried into effect by Abbot Gotzbert (815-837), under whom the monks built a new and magnificent church and by whom also the library was greatly enlarged. He purchased many fresh manuscripts and set his monks to multiply copies of them. His successor Grimald (841-872) carried on the work, and a catalogue drawn up in his time, still extant, shows the wide range of subjects represented. Over four hundred of the manuscripts mentioned in that catalogue are still at St. Gall.

During the abbacy of Engelbert II (924-933) an incursion of the Huns threatened the abbey, and most of the valuable books and manuscripts were removed to Reichenau for safety, some never being returned. In 937 a disastrous fire almost entirely destroyed the monastery, but the library fortunately escaped. The abbey and town were rebuilt and fortified, and throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries St. Gall maintained its place in the front rank of monastic establishments. With the thirteenth century, however, came a period of decline. Various causes contributed to this, one of them being the fact that the neighbouring feudal lords took to quartering themselves and their retinues upon the abbey more often than was good for monastic discipline. The abbots also were frequently called upon to settle their quarrels, and a spirit of worldliness thus crept into the cloister. About the same time the abbey and town became an independent principality, over which the abbots ruled as territorial sovereigns, taking rank as Princes of the Empire. Ulrich VI (1204-1220) was the first to hold that dignity. Records as to the library during this period are scanty. In the fourteenth century Humanists were allowed to take away some of the rarest of the classical manuscripts and in the sixteenth the abbey was raided by the Calvinists, who scattered many of the most valuable books. In 1530 Abbot Diethelm inaugurated a restoration with such success that he has been called the third founder of St. Gall. The library was one of his chief cares and his successors zealously followed his good example. Through their efforts the monastic spirit, the schools and the studies all revived and attained to something of their former greatness. In 1602, when the Swiss congregation of the Order of St. Benedict was formed, the Abbey of St. Gall took precedence as the first house of the congregation, and many of its abbots subsequently held the office of president.

A printing-press was started under Pius (1630-1674), which soon became one of the most important in Switzerland. In 1712 a great change came over the fortunes of the monastery. It was pillaged by the Swiss, who spared nothing. Most of the books and manuscripts were carried off to Zurich, Berne and other places, and only a portion of them were afterwards restored to St. Gall. The abbot of the time, Leodegar by name, was obliged for security to place his monastery under the protection of the townspeople whose ancestors had been serfs of the abbey, but who had, since the Reformation, thrown off the yoke of subjection. When these disturbances were over, a final attempt was made to revive the glories of the abbey. The monastery was rebuilt for the last time under Abbots Celestine II and Bede, but the resuscitation was short-lived. In 1798 the Swiss directory suppressed the ecclesiastical principality and secularized the abbey, and in 1805 its revenues were sequestrated. The monks took refuge in other houses of the congregation, the last abbot, Pancras Forster, dying in 1829 at Muri. When the Diocese of Constance was suppressed in 1821, that portion of it in which St. Gall was situated was united to the Diocese of Coire, but in 846 a rearrangement made St. Gall a separate see, with the abbey church as its cathedral and a portion of the monastic buildings being resigned for the bishop's residence. The church, rebuilt 1755-65 in the rococo style, contains some finely-carved choir stalls and a beautiful wrought iron screen. The conventual buildings, besides the bishop's palace, now accommodate also the cantonal offices and what remains of the library — about thirty thousand volumes and manuscripts. The town of St. Gall has a population of over 30,000 and is one of the principal manufacturing centres in Switzerland, muslin and cotton being its chief industries.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

St. Galla

A Roman widow of the sixth century; feast, 5 October. According to St. Gregory the Great (Dial. IV, ch. xiii) she was the daughter of the younger Symmachus, a learned and virtuous patrician of Rome, whom Theodoric had unjustly condemned to death (525). Becoming a widow before the end of the first year of her married life, she, still very young, founded a convent and hospital near St. Peter s, there spent the remainder of her days in austerities and works of mercy, and ended her life with an edifying death. The letter of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, "De statu viduarum", is supposed to have been addressed to her. Her church in Rome, near the Piazza Montanara, once held a picture of Our Lady, which according to tradition represents a vision vouchsafed to St. Galla. It is considered miraculous and was carried in recession in times of pestilence. It is now over the high altar of Santa Maria in Campitelli.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Galla

Vicariate Apostolic embracing the territory of the Galla or Oromo tribes in Abyssinia. In its widest extent the vicariate lies between 34d and 44d long. E. of Greenwich, and 4d and 10d N. lat. The Oromo or Galla, doubtless slightly European in descent, came originally from the region of Healal, lying between the junction of the two Niles and the River Baro. Eventually, about the fifteenth century, they began to invade Abyssinia, where they soon became so powerful that they shared the power with the Negus of Ethiopia. The Galla are divided into two principal branches, the Borana or Western Galla, and the Barentouma or Eastern Galla, both of them subdivided into numerous tribes. There exist among the Galla other important tribes, also genuine negro tribes and tribes of Mussulman origin. The vicariate dates from 4 May, 1846. The Capuchin, Right Rev. Guglielmo Massaia, was the first vicar Apostolic. He was born at Piova, province of Asti, Piedmont, 9 June, 1809, and had been a member of the aforesaid order twenty-one years when he was consecrated Bishop of Cassia, 24 May, 1846, and sent to the Galla tribes. It was then very difficult to gain access into the interior of Africa; only after five years of incessantly renewed attempts and at the cost of great hardships and many perils was he able to reach the region of Galla Assandabo, 20 November, 1852. Having evangelized the districts of Goudrou, Lagamara, Limmou, Nonna, and Guera, this valiant apostle entered, 4 Oct., 1859, the Kingdom of Kaffa, where conversions were abundant. With apostolic foresight he provided the converted tribes with priests, so that when persecution obliged him to flee, Christianity did not disappear.

In 1868 he was at Choa, where he laboured with success until 1879, and enjoyed the confidence of King Menelik, who made him his confidential counsellor and paid him great respect. In the interval the missions of Kaffa and Guera were administered by his coadjutor Bishop Felicissimo Coccino, who died 26 February, 1878. In 1879 Negus John of Abyssinia compelled his vassal Menelik to order Bishop Massaia to return to Europe. The venerable prelate, who had already been banished seven times, and was now more broken by labour and sufferings than by age, handed over the government of the vicariate to his coadjutor Bishop Taurin Cahagne, since 14 Feb., 1875, titular Bishop of Adramittium. Bishop Massaia was created cardinal by Leo XIII, 10 Nov., 1884; he died 6 Aug., 1889. He left valuable memoirs (see below), the publication of which was rewarded by the Italian government with the nomination to a high civil order, not accepted, however, by the venerable missionary. The mission of Harar was founded by Bishop Taurin, who from 1880 to 1899 sustained a glorious combat in this hot-bed of Islam and opened the way to the present quite prosperous mission. He has written a catechism and valuable works of Christian instruction in the Galla language. His name is held in veneration throughout these regions. The vicariate now includes the three great districts of Choa, Kaffa and Harar. There are 15 principal stations and an equal number of secondary ones. The Christians number more than 18,000. The mission possesses a seminary for priests and a preparatory seminary. It maintains 3 principal and 12 secondary schools, 3 dispensaries, 1 leper-hospital, 1 printing house, and important agricultural works. The vicar Apostolic has under his jurisdiction 125 European Capuchin missionaries from the province of Toulouse, France. There are also 8 native priests, 10 catechists, 35 seminarists, 17 Franciscan Sisters (Calais), and 12 Freres Gabrielistes (B. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort).

ANDREAS JAROSSEAU

Louis Gallait

Flemish painter; born at Tournai, 10 May, 1810; died in Brussels, 20 November, 1887. He produced melodramatic and sensational pictures, very much on the lines of those of Ary Scheffler, with a leaning towards the pathetic and emotional side. Gallait was, however, a more accomplished painter than Scheffer, with whom his works have frequently been compared. His colouring was superior, and his drawing more accurate, but the two men were possessed of similar devotional fervour, and poetic emotion of a sentimental type. Gallait was a youthful prodigy, and produced his first picture when ten years old, obtaining an important local prize. One of his earliest performances was purchased by the municipal authorities of Tournai and presented to the Cathedral, and it was owing to the generosity of his own townspeople that he was enabled in 1835 to go to Paris and study under Hennequin. He became a member of the Institute of France, and honorary foreign Royal Academician. Several of his pictures were exhibited in London in 1862, and three at the Royal Academy in 1872, when he was residing at 51 Bedford Square. He painted in water-colours as well as in oil, and was made an honorary member of the Royal Institute.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Antoine Galland

French Orientalist and numismatist, b. at Rollot, near Montdidier, in Picardy, 1646, d. at Paris, 1715. When he was four years old his father died leaving him in poverty, but through his diligence and industry he won protection which enabled him to pursue his studies at Noyon and later at Paris. He was already known as a scholar at the age of twenty-four, when de Nointel, the French ambassador at Constantinople, took him to the East to study the faith of the Greeks, several articles of which were the subject of a controversy between Arnault and the Protestant minister Claude. In 1675 Galland accompanied Nointel to Jerusalem, and in 1679 he was charged by Colbert, and, after his death by Louvois, with scientific researches in the Levant, with title of king's antiquary. He profited by these journeys to become familiar with modern Greek, and to learn Turkish, Persian, and Arabic. In 1701 he was admitted to the Academy of Inscriptions and Medals, and in 1709 he was appointed to the chair of Arabic at the Collège de France. We are indebted to him for numerous letters, notes, observations and remarks on the coins and inscriptions of Greek and Latin antiquity, many of which have been inserted in Banduri's "Bibliotheca nummaria". He collaborated in Herbelot's "Bibliothèque Orientale", which he brought to a conclusion after the death of its author. He is chiefly famous for his translation of the eastern tales, "The Arabian Nights" (Paris, 1704-08). This graceful though inaccurate translation, the first which had appeared in Europe until that time, brought great fame to its author. At his death he left many manuscripts, a number of which have been published, e.g., "Indian tales and fables of Pidpa• and Lokman"; the "History of the princes of the line of Tamerlane", translated from the work of the Persian historian Abdel-rezzac: "Ottoman History", translated from the Turkish of Na•m Effendi; "History of Ghengis-Khan", from the Persian history of Nurkhoud; "Numismatic Dictionary", etc.

MICHAUD, Biographie universelle; DE BOZE, Histoire de lÕAcadémie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, depuis son établissement, avec les éloges des Académiciens morts depuis son renouvellement (Paris, 1740); MAURY, Les académies dÕautrefois; LÕancienne académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 1882).

A. FOURNET

Andrea Gallandi

Oratorian and patristic scholar, born at Venice, 7 December, 1709; died there 12 January, 1779, or 1780. Gallandi was descended from an ancient French family. He pursued his theological and historical studies under such excellent teachers as the two Dominicans, Danello Concina, a renowned moralist, and Bernardo de Rossi (de Rubeis), a noted historical scholar and theologian. With both of these instructors he kept up a warm friendship after he had joined the Oratory of St. Philip Neri. He established his reputation as a scholar by compiling the still valuable work of reference: "Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Græco-Latina" (Venice, 1765-81, 14 vols.; 2nd ed., 1788). The work was dedicated to the Venetian Senate, but Gallandi di not live to see its completion. It is a collection of 380 ecclesiastical writers of the first seven centuries; its special merit is that instead of compiling important works already accessible in print, Gallandi gathered together the smaller and less known writings. Greek originals were printed in good type with Latin translations, and copious notes relative to the authors and their works were added. He also published a collection of the treatises of famous canonists (Coustant of Saint-Maur, the Ballerini, etc.) on the origin and development of canon law, which was entitled, "De vetustis canonum collectionibus dissertationum sylloge" (Venice, 1778, 1 vol. folio; Mainz, 1790, 2 vols.). At his death Gallandi left the following work which has never been published: "Thesaurus antiquitatis ecclesiasticæ historico-apologetico-criticus complectens SS. patrum gesta et scripta doctissimorum virorum dissertationibus asserta et illustrata ac juxta seriem XII sec. digesta".

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Galle

DIOCESE OF GALLE (GALLENSIS).

Diocese in Ceylon, created by Leo XIII 25 Aug., 1893, by detaching two civil provinces, the Southern (2146 sq. miles) and Sabaragamuwa (1901 sq. miles), from the Archdiocese of Colombo. The total population is about 900,000, of whom 10,160 are (1909) Catholics. Besides a few Europeans and burghers of mixed descent, the population includes Singalese, Moors, and Tamils. There is a still greater religious diversity: Sivites, Parsees, Mohammedans, Protestants of various denominations, mostly, however, Buddhists of the Southern type. For these reasons the conversion of the non-Catholic population is difficult; the racial and religious differences affect seriously the instruction of the faithful, sparsely scattered over a large area. Leo XIII entrusted the new diocese to the Belgian Jesuits, and appointed as first bishop the Very Rev. Joseph Van Reeth, rector of the novitiate at Tronchiennes (Belgium). The bishop-elect (b. 6 Aug., 1843) was consecrated on 19 March, 1895, in Antwerp, his native town. Accompanied by three priests and one lay brother, he took possession of his see 9 Nov., 1895, since when progress has been slow but steady. The clergy comprises 22 Jesuits and 5 secular priests (4 natives and 1 European), residing in eleven centres, each having its church, mission-house, and school. The Catholic population has been doubled. The number of confessions has risen from 6381 (1897) to 27,956 (1908), and that of Communions from 7196 to 48,000. In 1897 only 335 boys and 376 girls attended the 14 Catholic schools, of which 9 had been opened that year; there are now (1909) some 2140 boys and 1009 girls in 39 schools. In 1901 was opened St. Aloysius's College, under the Jesuit Fathers, with 300 pupils. Belgian sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary render praiseworthy help. They have a convent in Galle (1896) and one in Matara (1908), while a third is being built at Kegalla. To the Galle convent is attached a room for lace-making, work from which won a gold medal at the St. Louis Exhibition (U.S.A.) in 1904. A similar institution has been started at Matara.

J. COOREMAN

Juan Nicasio Gallego

Priest and poet; born at Zamora, Spain, 14 December, 1777; died at Madrid, 9 January, 1853; received his training at Salamanca; entering into Holy orders, he soon went to Madrid, where he was given a post in the royal palace, being made director of the royal pages. His feelings as a patriot and his love for pseudo-classicism very naturally led him to associate himself with the coterie about the poet Quintana. Imitating the latter's metres, he surpassed him in perfection of form, but remains somewhat his inferior in respect of inspiration. It is by virtue of only seven odes and elegies that Gallego attained the high rank which he certainly occupies among Spanish poets. Of these the first was the ode, "A la defensa de Buenos Ayres" (1807), directed against the English, who, taking advantage of Spain's naval weakness, and the uneasiness in the colonies, had seized for the moment the capital of the Argentine region. With intensified liberal tendencies, Gallego presented himself for election and was returned a deputy to the Cortes. He had consistently opposed the French invaders of the Spanish soil, with both pen and voice, yet the despotic Ferdinand VII, after his return in 1814, imprisoned him because of his liberalism. During the second constitutional period, now free again, he was appointed Archdeacon of Valencia. The Royal Spanish Academy took him into its membership, and made him its perpetual secretary. The most famous of the few compositions left by Gallego is the elegy "El Dos de Mayo", which commemorates the events of 2 May, 1808 when the heroic and devoted opposition presented to the French troops by three Spanish artillerymen, Ruiz, Daoiz and Velarte, led to the rising of the whole land against the Napoleonic usurper. The effect of Gallego's stirring strains upon his countrymen, urging them to resist unto the death, can hardly be exaggerated. Excellence of form characterizes this poem as it does his elegy on the death of the Duchess of Frias.

His poems are in the Biblioteca de autores españoles, LXVII. BLANCO-GARCÍA, Historia de la literatura española en el siglo XIX.

J.D.M. FORD

Pietro Luigi Galletti

Benedictine, historian and archaeologist; b. at Rome in 1724; d. there, 13 December, 1790. He was educated in Rome where he entered the Order of St. Benedict. While a monk in the Abbey of St. Paul Without the Walls, he made a collection of the numerous ancient inscriptions used in the pavement of the floor of the famous basilica or scattered among the cloister buildings and in the surrounding vineyards. These became soon the nucleus of a classified museum of Christian and Pagan inscriptions. Later on he became keeper of the archives and librarian of the Benedictines in Florence. Pius VI bestowed various benefices on him and made him titular Bishop of Cyrene.

As a historian Galletti displayed great erudition and diligence. Some of his writings are still authoritative, notably his collection of inscriptions and his works on the higher papal officials of the old Lateran Palace. His literary activities were directed to widely divergent periods and spheres of historical and archaeological research. On Roman antiquity he wrote: "Capena, municipio dei Romani" (Rome, 1756), and "Gabbio, antica città di Sabina, scoperta ove era Torri" (Rome, 1757). His two works "Del Vestarario della santa Romana chiesa" (Rome, 1758), and "Del Primicerio della S. Sede Apostolica e di altri Uffiziali Maggiori del Sacro Palazzo Lateranense" (Rome, 1776) deal with the early history of the Roman Curia. The latter work is especially thorough and important. Among his contributions to the history of the religious orders the following are noteworthy: "Lettera intorno la vera e sicura origine del ven. ordine di S. Girolamo" (Rome, 1755), and "Raggionamento dell'origine e de'primi tempi dell'abbadia Fiorentina (Rome, 1773). He was the author of a biography of the bishops of Viterbo: "Lettera a Giannantonio Bersetta sopra alcuni vescovi di Viterbo" (Rome, 1759), and of Cardinal Passionei: "Memorie per servire alla storia della vita del card. Domenico Passionei" (Rome, 1762). His work on the early churches of Rieti is of value for Christian archaeology: "Memoria di tre antiche chiese di Riete, S. Michele Arcangelo, S. Agata alla Rocca, S. Giacomo" (Rome, 1765). Finally, it is to Galletti that is due the first great collection of medieval inscriptions, treated as a source of historical information. His "Inscriptiones Venetae infimi aevi Romae exstantes" (Rome, 1757) was followed in the same series by the inscriptions found in Rome concerning Bologna, Rome itself (3 vols.), the March of Ancona, and Piedmont, in all seven volumes (1757-66).

J.P. KIRSCH

Gallia Christiana

A documentary catalogue or list, with brief historical notices, of all the dioceses and abbeys of France from the earliest times, also of their occupants. In 1621 Jean Chenu, an avocat at the Parlement of Paris, published in a book entitled "Archiepiscoporum et episcoporum Galliæ chronologica historia". Nearly a third of the bishops are missing, and the episcopal succession as given by Chenu was very incomplete. In 1626, Claude Robert, a priest of Langres, published with the approbation of Baronius, a "Gallia Christiana", in which he even entered a large number of churches outside of Gaul, and gave a short history of the metropolitan sees, cathedrals, and abbeys. Two brothers de Sainte-Marthe, Scévole (1571-1650) and Louis (1571-1656), appointed royal historiographers of France in 1620, had assisted Chenu and Robert. At the assembly of Clergy in 1626 a number of prelates commissioned these brothers to compile a more definitive work. They died before the completion of their work, and it was issued in 1656 by the sons of Scévole de Sainte-Marthe, Pierre (1618-90), himself historiographer of France, Abel (1620-71), theologian, and later general of the Oratory, and Nicolas-Charles (1623-62), prior of Claunay. On 13 September, 1656, the Sainte-Marthe brothers were presented to the assembly of the French Clergy, who accepted the dedication of the work on condition that a passage suspected of Jansenism be suppressed. The work formed four volumes in folio, the first for the archdioceses, the second and third for the dioceses, and the fourth for the abbeys, all in alphabetical order. The title was "Gallia Christiana, qua series omnia archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et abbatum Franciæ vicinarumque ditionum ab origine ecclesiarum ad nostra tempora per quattor tomos deducitur, et probator ex antiquæ fidei manuscriptis Vaticani, regnum, principum tabulariis omnium Galliæ cathedralium et abbatarium". Such as it was, the work possessed considerable value at the time, especially for the fullness of its lists and for the reproduction of a large number of valuable manuscripts. The defects and omissions, however, were obvious. The Sainte-Marthe brothers themselves announced in their preface the early appearance of a second edition corrected and enlarged. As early as 1660 the Jesuit Jean Colomb published at Lyons the "Noctes Blancalandanæ" which contains certain additions to the work of the Samarthani, as the brothers and their successors are often called.

The edition promised by the Sainte-Marthe brothers did not appear. In 1710 the Assembly of the French Clergy offered four thousand livres to Denys de Sainte-Marthe (1650-1725), a Benedictine of Saint-Maur, renown for his polemics against the Abbé de Rancé on the subject of monastic studies, on condition that he should bring the revision of the "Gallia Christiana" to a successful conclusion, that the first volume should appear at the end of four years, and that his congregation should continue the undertaking after his death. in 1715 through his efforts the first volume appeared, devoted to the ecclesiastical provinces of Albi, Aix, Arles, Avignon, and Auch. In 1720 he produced the second volume dealing with the provinces of Bourges and Bordeaux, and in 1725 the third, which treated of Cambrai, Cologne, and Embrum. After his death the Benedictines issued the fourth volume (1728) on Lyons, and the fifth volume (1731) on Mechlin and Mainz. Between 1731 and 1740, on account of the controversies over the Bull "Unigenitus", Dom Félix Hodin and Dom Ettiene Brice, who were preparing the latter volumes of the "Gallia Christiana", were expelled from the Abbey of Saint-Germaine des Prés. They returned to Paris in 1739 and issued the sixth volume, dealing with Narbonne, also (1744) the seventh and eighth volumes on Paris and its suffragan sees. Père Duplessis united his efforts with theirs, and the ninth and tenth volumes, both on the province of Reims, appeared in 1751. The eleventh volume (1759) dealing with the province of Rouen was issued by Père Pierre Henri and Dom Jacques Taschereau. In 1770 the twelfth volume on the provinces of Sens and Tartenaise appeared, and in 1785 the thirteenth on the provinces of Toulouse and Trier. At the outbreak of the revolution, four volumes were lacking, Tours, Beançon, Utrecht, and Vienne, respectively, and according to the Benedictine method, the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth volumes of the "Gallia Christiana". The province of Utrecht alone has no place in this great collection, but this defect has been remedied in part by the "Bullarium Trajectense", edited by Gisbert Brom, and extending from the earliest times to 1378 (The Hague, 1891-96). The new "Gallia Christiana", of which volumes I to V and XI to XIII were reprinted by Dom Piolin between 1870 and 1877, and volumes VI to IX and XII by the publisher H. Welter, places after each metropolitan see its suffragan sees, and after each see the abbeys belonging to it. The documents, instead of encumbering the body of the articles, are inserted at the foot of each column under the title "Instrumenta". This colossal work does great honour to the Benedictines and to the Sainte-Marthe family. "The name of Sainte-Marthe", wrote Voltaire, "is one of those of which the country has most reason to be proud. "

In 1774 the Abbé Hugues du Temps, vicar-general of Bordeaux, undertook in seven volumes an abridgement of the "Gallia" under the title "Le clergé de France" of which only four volumes appeared. About 1867 the Abbé Fisquet undertook the publication of an episcopal history of France (La France Pontificate) in which for the early period he should utilize the "Gallia", at the same time bringing the history of each diocese down to modern times. Twenty-two volumes appeared and then the work ceased. Some years ago Canon Albanès projected a complete revision of the "Gallia Christiana", each ecclesiastical province to form a volume. Albanès, who was one of the first scholars to search the Lateran and Vatican libraries, in his efforts to determine the initial years of some episcopal reigns, found occasionally either the acts of election or the Bulls of provision. He hoped in this way to remove certain suppositious bishops who had been introduced to fill gaps in the catalogues, but died in 1897 before the first volume appeared. Through the use of his notes and the efforts of Canon Chevalier three addition volumes of this "Gallia Christiana (novissima)", treating Arles, Aix, and Marseilles, have appeared at Montbéliard since 1899.

Dreux du Radier, Bibliothèque historique et critique du Poitou (Paris, 1754); Gallia Christiana, Vol. IV, Preface; Gallia Christiana (novissima) (Montbéliard, 1899), Preface to the Aix volume; de Longuemare, Un famille d'auteurs aux seizième, dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles; les Sainte-Marthe (Paris, 1902).

GEORGES GOYAU

Gallicanism

This term is used to designate a certain group of religious opinions for some time peculiar to the Church of France, or Gallican Church, and the theological schools of that country. These opinions, in opposition to the ideas which were called in France "Ultramontane", tended chiefly to a restraint of the pope's authority in the Church in favour of that of the bishops and the temporal ruler. It is important, however, to remark at the outset that the warmest and most accredited partisans of Gallican ideas by no means contested the pope's primacy in the Church, and never claimed for their ideas the force of articles of faith. They aimed only at making it clear that their way of regarding the authority of the pope seemed to them more in conformity with Holy Scripture and tradition. At the same time, their theory did not, as they regarded it, transgress the limits of free opinions, which it is allowable for any theological school to choose for itself provided that the Catholic Creed be duly accepted.

General Notions

Nothing can better serve the purpose of presenting an exposition at once exact and complete of the Gallican ideas than a summary of the famous Declaration of the Clergy of France of 1682. Here, for the first time, those ideas are organized into a system, and receive their official and definitive formula. Stripped of the arguments which accompany it, the doctrine of the Declaration reduces to the following four articles:

1. St. Peter and the popes, his successors, and the Church itself have received dominion [puissance] from God only over things spiritual and such as concern salvation and not over things temporal and civil. Hence kings and sovereigns are not by God's command subject to any ecclesiastical dominion in things temporal; they cannot be deposed, whether directly or indirectly, by the authority of the rulers of the Church, their subjects cannot be dispensed from that submission and obedience which they owe, or absolved from the oath of allegiance.
2. The plenitude of authority in things spiritual, which belongs to the Holy See and the successors of St. Peter, in no wise affects the permanence and immovable strength of the decrees of the Council of Constance contained in the fourth and fifth sessions of that council, approved by the Holy See, confirmed by the practice of the whole Church and the Roman pontiff, and observed in all ages by the Gallican Church. That Church does not countenance the opinion of those who cast a slur on those decrees, or who lessen their force by saying that their authority is not well established, that they are not approved or that they apply only to the period of the schism.
3. The exercise of this Apostolic authority [puissance] must also be regulated in accordance with the canons made by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the respect of the whole world. The rules, customs and constitutions received within the kingdom and the Gallican Church must have their force and their effect, and the usages of our fathers remain inviolable since the dignity of the Apostolic See itself demands that the laws and customs established by consent of that august see and of the Churches be constantly maintained.
4. Although the pope have the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church.

According to the Gallican theory, then, the papal primacy was limited, first, by the temporal power of princes, which, by the Divine will, was inviolable; secondly by the authority of the general council and that of the bishops, who alone could, by their assent, give to his decrees that infallible authority which, of themselves, they lacked; lastly, by the canons and customs of particular Churches, which the pope was bound to take into account when he exercised his authority.

But Gallicanism was more than pure speculation. It reacted from the domain of theory into that of facts. The bishops and magistrates of France used it, the former as warrant for increased power in the government of dioceses, the latter to extend their jurisdiction so as to cover ecclesiastical affairs. Moreover, there was an episcopal and political Gallicanism, and a parliamentary or judicial Gallicanism. The former lessened the doctrinal authority of the pope in favour of that of the bishops, to the degree marked by the Declaration of 1682; the latter, affecting the relations of the temporal and spiritual powers, tended to augment the rights of the State more and more, to the prejudice of those of the Church, on the grounds of what they called "the Liberties of the Gallican Church" (Libertes de l'Eglise Gallicane).

These Liberties, which are enumerated in a collection, or corpus, drawn up by the jurisconsults Guy Coquille and Pierre Pithou, were, according to the latter, eighty-three in number. Besides the four articles cited above, which were incorporated, the following may be noted as among the more important: The Kings of France had the right to assemble councils in their dominions, and to make laws and regulations touching ecclesiastical matters. The pope's legates could not be sent into France, or exercise their power within that kingdom, except at the king's request or with his consent. Bishops, even when commanded by the pope, could not go out of the kingdom without the king's consent. The royal officers could not be excommunicated for any act performed in the discharge of their official duties. The pope could not authorize the alienation of any landed estate of the Churches, or the diminishing of any foundations. His Bulls and Letters might not be executed without the Pareatis of the king or his officers. He could not issue dispensations to the prejudice of the laudable customs and statutes of the cathedral Churches. It was lawful to appeal from him to a future council, or to have recourse to the "appeal as from an abuse" (appel comme d'abus) against acts of the ecclesiastical power.

Parliamentary Gallicanism, therefore, was of much wider scope than episcopal; indeed, it was often disavowed by the bishops of France, and about twenty of them condemned Pierre Pithou's book when a new edition of it was published, in 1638, by the brothers Dupuy.

Origin and History

The Declaration of 1682 and the work of Pithou codified the principles of Gallicanism, but did not create them. We have to inquire, then, how there came to be formed in the bosom of the Church of France a body of doctrines and practices which tended to isolate it, and to impress upon it a physiognomy somewhat exceptional in the Catholic body. Gallicans have held that the reason of this phenomenon is to be found in the very origin and history of Gallicanism.

For the more moderate among them, Gallican ideas and liberties were simply privileges -- concessions made by the popes, who had been quite willing to divest themselves of a part of their authority in favour of the bishops or kings or France. It was thus that the latter could lawfully stretch their powers in ecclesiastical matters beyond the normal limits. This idea made its appearance as early as the reign of Philip the Fair, in some of the protests of that monarch against the policy of Boniface VIII. In the view of some partisans of the theory, the popes had always thought fit to show especial consideration for the ancient customs of the Gallican Church, which in every age had distinguished itself by its exactitude in the preservation of the Faith and the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline. Others, again, assigned a more precise date to the granting of these concessions, referring their origin to the period of the earliest Carlovingians and explaining them somewhat differently. They said that the popes had found it impossible to recall to their allegiance and to due respect for ecclesiastical discipline the Frankish lords who had possessed themselves of episcopal sees; that these lords, insensible to censures and anathemas, rude and untaught, recognized no authority but that of force; and that the popes had, therefore, granted to Carloman, Pepin, and Charles the Great a spiritual authority which they were to exercise only under papal control. It was this authority that the Kings of France, successors of these princes, had inherited. This theory comes into collision with difficulties so serious as to have caused its rejection as well by the majority of Gallicans as by their Ultramontane adversaries. The former by no means admitted that the Liberties were privileges since a privilege can be revoked by him who has granted it; and, as they regarded the matter, these Liberties could not be touched by any pope. Moreover, they added, the Kings of France have at times received from the popes certain clearly defined privileges; these privileges have never been confounded with the Gallican Liberties. As a matter of fact, historians could have told them, the privileges accorded by popes to the King of France in the course of centuries are known from the texts, of which an authentic collection could be compiled, and there is nothing in them resembling the Liberties in question. Again, why should not these Gallican Liberties have been transmitted to the German Emperors as well since they, too, were the heirs of Pepin and Charlemagne? Besides, the Ultramontanes pointed out there are some privileges which the pope himself could not grant. Is it conceivable that a pope should allow any group of bishops the privilege of calling his infallibility in question, putting his doctrinal decisions upon trial, to be accepted or rejected? -- or grant any kings the privilege of placing his primacy under tutelage by suppressing or curtailing his liberty of communication with the faithful in a certain territory?

Most of its partisans regarded Gallicanism rather as a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity, a persistence of the common law, which law, according to some (Pithou, Quesnel), was made up of the conciliar decrees of the earliest centuries or, according to others (Marca, Bossuet), of canons of the general and local councils, and the decretals, ancient and modern, which were received in France or conformable to their usage. "Of all Christian countries", says Fleury, "France has been the most careful to conserve the liberty of her Church and oppose the novelties introduced by Ultramontane canonists". The Liberties were so called, because the innovations constituted conditions of servitude with which the popes had burdened the Church, and their legality resulted from the fact that the extension given by the popes to their own primacy was founded not upon Divine institution, but upon the false Decretals. If we are to credit these authors, what the Gallicans maintained in 1682 was not a collection of novelties, but a body of beliefs as old as the Church, the discipline of the first centuries. The Church of France had upheld and practised them at all times; the Church Universal had believed and practised them of old, until about the tenth century; St. Louis had supported, but not created, them by the Pragmatic Sanction; the Council of Constance had taught them with the pope's approbation. Gallican ideas, then, must have had no other origin than that of Christian dogma and ecclesiastical discipline. It is for history to tell us what these assertions of the Gallican theorists were worth.

To the similarity of the historical vicissitudes through which they passed, their common political allegiance, and the early appearance of a national sentiment, the Churches of France owed it that they very soon formed an individual, compact, and homogeneous body. From the end of the fourth century the popes themselves recognized this solidarity. It was to the "Gallican" bishops that Pope Damasus -- as M. Babut seems to have demonstrated recently -- addressed the most ancient decretal which has been preserved to our times. Two centuries later St. Gregory the Great pointed out the Gallican Church to his envoy Augustine, the Apostle of England, as one of those whose customs he might accept as of equal stability with those of the Roman Church or of any other whatsoever. But already -- if we are to believe the young historian just mentioned -- a Council of Turin, at which bishops of the Gauls assisted, had given the first manifestation of Gallican sentiment. Unfortunately for M. Babut's thesis, all the significance which he attaches to this council depends upon the date, 417, ascribed to it by him, on the mere strength of a personal conjecture, in opposition to the most competent historians. Besides, It is not at all plain how a council of the Province of Milan is to be taken as representing the ideas of the Gallican Church.

In truth, that Church, during the Merovingian period, testifies the same deference to the Holy See as do all the others. Ordinary questions of discipline are in the ordinary course settled in councils, often held with the assent of the kings, but on great occasions -- at the Councils of Epaone (517), of Vaison (529), of Valence (529), of Orleans (538), of Tours (567) -- the bishops do not fail to declare that they are acting under the impulse of the Holy See, or defer to its admonitions; they take pride in the approbation of the pope; they cause his name to be read aloud in the churches, just as is done in Italy and in Africa they cite his decretals as a source of ecclesiastical law; they show indignation at the mere idea that anyone should fail in consideration for them. Bishops condemned in councils -- like Salonius of Embrun Sagitarius of Gap, Contumeliosus of Riez -- have no difficulty in appealing to the pope, who, after examination, either confirms or rectifies the sentence pronounced against them.

The accession of the Carlovingian dynasty is marked by a splendid act of homage paid in France to the power of the papacy: before assuming the title of king, Pepin makes a point of securing the assent of Pope Zachary. Without wishing to exaggerate the significance of this act, the bearing of which the Gallicans have done every thing to minimize, one may be permitted to see in it the evidence that, even before Gregory VII, public opinion in France was not hostile to the intervention of the pope in political affairs. From that time on, the advances of the Roman primacy find no serious opponents in France before Hincmar, the famous Archbishop of Reims, in whom some have been willing to see the very founder of Gallicanism. It is true that with him there already appears the idea that the pope must limit his activity to ecclesiastical matters, and not intrude in those pertaining to the State, which concern kings only; that his supremacy is bound to respect the prescriptions of the ancient canons and the privileges of the Churches; that his decretals must not be placed upon the same footing as the canons of the councils. But it appears that we should see here the expression of passing feelings, inspired by the particular circumstances, much rather than a deliberate opinion maturely conceived and conscious of its own meaning. The proof of this is in the fact that Hincmar himself, when his claims to the metropolitan dignity are not in question, condemns very sharply, though at the risk of self-contradiction, the opinion of those who think that the king is subject only to God, and he makes it his boast to "follow the Roman Church whose teachings", he says quoting the famous words of Innocent I, "are imposed upon all men". His attitude, at any rate, stands out as an isolated accident; the Council of Troyes (867) proclaims that no bishop can be deposed without reference to the Holy See, and the Council of Douzy (871), although held under the influence of Hincmar condemns the Bishop of Laon only under reserve of the rights of the pope.

With the first Capets the secular relations between the pope and the Gallican Church appeared to be momentarily strained. At the Councils of Saint-Basle de Verzy (991) and of Chelles (c. 993), in the discourses of Arnoul, Bishop of Orleans, in the letters of Gerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester II, sentiments of violent hostility to the Holy See are manifested, and an evident determination to elude the authority in matters of discipline which had until then been recognized as belonging to it. But the papacy at that period, given over to the tyranny of Crescentius and other local barons, was undergoing a melancholy obscuration. When it regained its independence, its old authority in France came back to it, the work of the Councils of Saint-Basle and of Chelles was undone; princes like Hugh Capet, bishops like Gerbert, held no attitude but that of submission. It has been said that during the early Capetian period the pope was more powerful in France than he had ever been. Under Gregory VII the pope's legates traversed France from north to south, they convoked and presided over numerous councils, and, in spite of sporadic and incoherent acts of resistance, they deposed bishops and excommunicated princes just as in Germany and Spain

In the following two centuries Gallicanism is even yet unborn; the pontifical power attains its apogee in France as elsewhere, St. Bernard, then the standard bearer of the University of Paris, and St. Thomas outline the theory of that power, and their opinion is that of the school in accepting the attitude of Gregory VII and his successors in regard to delinquent princes, St. Louis, of whom it has been sought to make a patron of the Gallican system, is still ignorant of it -- for the fact is now established that the Pragmatic Sanction, long attributed to him was a wholesale fabrication put together (about 1445) in the purlieus of the Royal Chancellery of Charles VII to lend countenance to the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges.

At the opening of the fourteenth century, however, the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII brings out the first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas. That king does not confine himself to maintaining that, as sovereign he is sole and independent master of his temporalities; he haughtily proclaims that, in virtue of the concession made by the pope, with the assent of a general council to Charlemagne and his successors, he has the right to dispose of vacant ecclesiastical benefices. With the consent of the nobility, the Third Estate, and a great part of the clergy, he appeals in the matter from Boniface VIII to a future general council -- the implication being that the council is superior to the pope. The same ideas and others still more hostile to the Holy See reappear in the struggle of Fratricelles and Louis of Bavaria against John XXII; they are expressed by the pens of William Occam, of John of Jandun, and of Marsilius of Padua, professors in the University of Paris. Among other things, they deny the Divine origin of the papal primacy, and subject the exercise of it to the good pleasure of the temporal ruler. Following the pope, the University of Paris condemned these views; but for all that they did not entirely disappear from the memory, or from the disputations, of the schools, for the principal work of Marsilius, "Defensor Pacis", wax translated into French in 1375, probably by a professor of the University of Paris The Great Schism reawakened them suddenly. The idea of a council naturally suggested itself as a means of terminating that melancholy rending asunder of Christendom. Upon that idea was soon grafted the "conciliary theory", which sets the council above the pope, making it the sole representative of the Church, the sole organ of infallibility. Timidly sketched by two professors of the University of Paris, Conrad of Gelnhausen and Henry of Langenstein, this theory was completed and noisily interpreted to the public by Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson. At the same time the clergy of France, disgusted with Benedict XIII, took upon itself to withdraw from his obedience. It was in the assembly which voted on this measure (1398) that for the first time there was any question of bringing back the Church of France to its ancient liberties and customs -- of giving its prelates once more the right of conferring and disposing of benefices. The same idea comes into the foreground in the claims put, forward in 1406 by another assembly of the French clergy; to win the votes of the assembly, certain orators cited the example of what was happening in England. M. Haller has concluded from this that these so-called Ancient Liberties were of English origin, that the Gallican Church really borrowed them from its neighbour, only imagining them to be a revival of its own past. This opinion does not seem well founded. The precedents cited by M. Haller go back to the parliament held at Carlisle in 1307, at which date the tendencies of reaction against papa reservations had already manifested themselves in the assemblies convoked by Philip the Fair in 1302 and 1303. The most that we can admit is, that the same ideas received parallel development from both sides of the channel.

Together with the restoration of the "Ancient Liberties" the assembly of the clergy in 1406 intended to maintain the superiority of the council to the pope, and the fallibility of the latter. However widely they may have been accepted at the time, these were only individual opinions or opinions of a school, when the Council of Constance came to give them the sanction of its high authority. In its fourth and fifth sessions it declared that the council represented the Church that every person, no matter of what dignity, even the pope, was bound to obey it in what concerned the extirpation of the schism and the reform of the Church; that even the pope, if he resisted obstinately, might be constrained by process of law to obey It in the above-mentioned points. This was the birth or, if we prefer to call it so, the legitimation of Gallicanism. So far we bad encountered in the history of the Gallican Church recriminations of malcontent bishops, or a violent gesture of some prince discomforted in his avaricious designs; but these were only fits of resentment or ill humor, accidents with no attendant consequences; this time the provisions made against exercise of the pontifical authority took to themselves a body and found a fulcrum. Gallicanism has implanted itself in the minds of men as a national doctrine e and it only remains to apply it in practice. This is to be the work of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. In that instrument the clergy of France inserted the articles of Constance repeated at Basle, and upon that warrant assumed authority to regulate the collation of benefices and the temporal administration of the Churches on the sole basis of the common law, under the king's patronage, and independently of the pope's action. From Eugene IV to Leo X the popes did not cease to protest against the Pragmatic Sanction, until it was replaced by the Concordat of 1516. But, if its provisions disappeared from the laws of France, the principles it embodied for a time none the less continued to inspire the schools of theology and parliamentary jurisprudence. Those principles even appeared at the Council of Trent, where the ambassadors, theologians, and bishops of France repeatedly championed them, notably when the questions for decision were as to whether episcopal jurisdiction comes immediately from God or through the pope, whether or not the council ought to ask confirmation of its decrees from the sovereign pontiff, etc. Then again, it was in the name of the Liberties of the Gallican Church that a part of the clergy and the Parlementaires opposed the publication of that same council; and the crown decided to detach from it and publish what seemed good, in the form of ordinances emanating from the royal authority.

Nevertheless, towards the end of the sixteenth century, the reaction against the Protestant denial of all authority to the pope and, above all, the triumph of the League had enfeebled Gallican convictions in the minds of the clergy, if not of the parliament. But the assassination of Henry IV, which was exploited to move public opinion against Ultramontanism and the activity of Edmond Richer, syndic of the Sorbonne, brought about, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, a strong revival of Gallicanism, which was thenceforward to continue gaining in strength from day to day. In 1663 the Sorbonne solemnly declared that it admitted no authority of the pope over the king's temporal dominion, nor his superiority to a general council, nor infallibility apart from the Church's consent. In 1682 matters were much worse. Louis XIV having decided to extend to all the Churches of his kingdom the regale, or right of receiving the revenue of vacant sees, and of conferring the sees themselves at his pleasure, Pope Innocent XI strongly opposed the king's designs. Irritated by this resistance, the king assembled the clergy of France and, on 19 March, 1682, the thirty-six prelates and thirty-four deputies of the second order who constituted that assembly adopted the four articles recited above and transmitted them to all the other bishops and archbishops of France. Three days later the king commanded the registration of the articles in all the schools and faculties of theology; no one could even be admitted to degrees in theology without having maintained this doctrine in one of his theses and it was forbidden to write anything against them. The Sorbonne, however, yielded to the ordinance of registration only after a spirited resistance. Pope Innocent XI testified his displeasure by the Rescript of 11 April, 1682, in which he voided and annulled all that the assembly had done in regard to the regale, as well as all the consequences of that action; he also refused Bulls to all members of the assembly who were proposed for vacant bishoprics. In like manner his successor Alexander VIII by a Constitution dated 4 August, 1690, quashed as detrimental to the Holy See the proceedings both in the matter of the regale and in that of the declaration on the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction, which had been prejudicial to the clerical estate and order. The bishops designate to whom Bulls had been refused received them at length, in 1693, only after addressing to Pope Innocent XII a letter in which they disavowed everything that had been decreed in that assembly in regard to the ecclesiastical power and the pontifical authority. The king himself wrote to the pope (14 September, 1693) to announce that a royal order had been issued against the execution of the edict of 23 March, 1682. In spite of these disavowals, the Declaration of 1682 remained thenceforward the living symbol of Gallicanism, professed by the great majority of the French clergy, obligatorily defended in the faculties of theology, schools, and seminaries, guarded from the lukewarmness of French theologians and the attacks of foreigners by the inquisitorial vigilance of the French parliaments, which never failed to condemn to suppression every work that seemed hostile to the principles of the Declaration.

From France Gallicanism spread, about the middle of the eighteenth century, into the Low Countries, thanks to the works of the jurisconsult Van-Espen. Under the pseudonym of Febronius, Hontheim introduced it into Germany where it took the forms of Febronianism and Josephism. The Council of Pistoia (1786) even tried to acclimatize it in Italy. But its diffusion was sharply arrested by the Revolution, which took away its chief support by overturning the thrones of kings. Against the Revolution that drove them out and wrecked their sees, nothing was left to the bishops of France but to link themselves closely with the Holy See. After the Concordat of 1801 -- itself the most dazzling manifestation of the pope's supreme power -- French Governments made some pretence of reviving, in the Organic Articles, the "Ancient Gallican Liberties" and the obligation of teaching the articles of 1682, but ecclesiastical Gallicanism was never again resuscitated except in the form of a vague mistrust of Rome. On the fall of Napoleon and the Bourbons, the work of Lamennais, of "L'Avenir" and other publications devoted to Roman ideas, the influence of Dom Guéranger, and the effects of religious teaching ever increasingly deprived it of its partisans. When the Vatican Council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders. When that council declared that the pope has in the Church the plenitude of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals discipline, and administration that his decisions ex cathedra. are of themselves, and without the assent of he Church, infallible and irreformable, it dealt Gallicanism a mortal blow. Three of the four articles were directly condemned. As to the remaining one, the first, the council made no specific declaration; but an important indication of the Catholic doctrine was given in the condemnation fulminated by Pius IX against the 24th proposition of the Syllabus, in which it was asserted that the Church cannot have recourse to force and is without any temporal authority, direct or indirect. Leo XIII shed more direct light upon the question in his Encyclical "Immortale Dei" (12 November, 1885), where we read: "God has apportioned the government of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the former set over things divine, the latter over things human. Each is restricted within limits which are perfectly determined and defined in conformity with its own nature and special aim. There is therefore, as it were a circumscribed sphere in which each exercises its functions jure proprio". And in the Encyclical "Sapientiae Christianae" (10 January, 1890), the same pontiff adds: "The Church and the State have each its own power, and neither of the two powers is subject to the other."

Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican, Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavoured to keep it alive under this form. Judging by the paucity of the adherents whom they have recruited -- daily becoming fewer -- in Germany and Switzerland, it seems very evident that the historical evolution of these ideas has reached its completion.

Critical Examination

The principal force of Gallicanism always was that which it drew from the external circumstances in which it arose and grew up: the difficulties of the Church, torn by schism; the encroachments of the civil authorities; political turmoil; the interested support of the kings of France. None the less does it seek to establish its own right to exist, and to legitimize its attitude towards the theories of the schools. There is no denying that it has had in its service a long succession of theologians and jurists who did much to assure its success. At the beginning, its first advocates were Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson, whose somewhat daring theories, reflecting the then prevalent disorder of ideas, were to triumph in the Council of Constance. In the sixteenth century Almain and Major make but a poor figure in contrast with Torquemada and Cajetan, the leading theorists of pontifical primacy. But in the seventeenth century the Gallican doctrine takes its revenge with Richer and Launoy, who throw as much passion as science into their efforts to shake the work of Bellarmine, the most solid edifice ever raised in defence of the Church's constitution and the papal supremacy. Pithou, Dupuy, and Marca edited texts or disinterred from archives the judicial monuments best calculated to support parliamentary Gallicanism. After 1682 the attack and defence of Gallicanism were concentrated almost entirely upon the four Articles. While Charlas in his anonymous treatise on the Liberties of the Catholic Church, d'Aguirre, in his "Auctoritas infallibilis et summa sancti Petri", Rocaberti, in his treatise "De Romani pontificis auctoritate", Sfondrato, in his "Gallia vindicata", dealt severe blows at the doctrine of the Declaration, Alexander Natalis and Ellies Dupin searched ecclesiastical history for titles on which to support it. Bossuet carried on the defence at once on the ground of theology and of history. In his "Defensio declarationis", which was not to see the light of day until 1730, he discharged his task with equal scientific power and moderation. Again Gallicanism was ably combatted in the works of Muzzarelli, Bianchi, and Ballerini, and upheld in those of Durand de Maillane, La Luzerne, Maret and Doellinger. But the strife is prolonged beyond its interest; except for the bearing of some few arguments on either side, nothing that is altogether new, after all, is adduced for or against, and it may be said that with Bossuet's work Gallicanism had reached its full development, sustained its sharpest assaults, and exhibited its most efficient means of defence.

Those means are well known. For the absolute independence of the civil power, affirmed in the first Article, Gallicans drew their argument from the proposition that the theory of indirect power, accepted by Bellarmine, is easily reducible to that of direct power, which he did not accept. That theory was a novelty introduced into the Church by Gregory VII; until his time the Christian peoples and the popes had suffered injustice from princes without asserting for themselves the right to revolt or to excommunicate. As for the superiority of councils over popes, as based upon the decrees of the Council of Constance, the Gallicans essayed to defend it chiefly by appealing to the testimony of history which, according to them, shows that general councils have never been dependent on the popes, but had been considered the highest authority for the settlement of doctrinal disputes or the establishment of disciplinary regulations. The third Article was supported by the same arguments or upon the declarations of the popes. It is true that that Article made respect for the canons a matter rather of high propriety than of obligation for the Holy See. Besides, the canons alleged were among those that had been established with the consent of the pope and of the Churches, the plenitude of the pontifical jurisdiction was therefore safeguarded and Bossuet pointed out that this article had called forth hardly any protests from the adversaries of Gallicanism. It was not so with the fourth Article, which implied a negation of papal infallibility. Resting chiefly on history, the whole Gallican argument reduced to the position that the Doctors of the Church -- St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Thomas, and the rest -- had not known pontifical infallibility; that pronouncements emanating from the Holy See had been submitted to examination by councils; that popes -- Liberius, Honorius, Zosimus, and others -- had promulgated erroneous dogmatic decisions. Only the line of popes, the Apostolic See, was infallible; but each pope, taken individually, was liable to error.

This is not the place to discuss the force of this line of argument, or set forth the replies which it elicited; such an enquiry will more appropriately form part of the article devoted to the primacy of the Roman See. Without involving ourselves in technical developments, however, we may call attention to the weakness, of the Scriptural scaffolding upon which Gallicanism supported its fabric. Not only was it opposed by the luminous clearness of Christ's words -- "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church"; "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not . . . confirm thy brethren" -- but it finds nothing in Scripture which could warrant the doctrine of the supremacy of council or the distinction between the line of popes and the individuals -- the Sedes and the Sedens. Supposing there were any doubt of Christ's having promised infallibility to Peter, it is perfectly certain that He did not promise it to the council, or to the See of Rome, neither of which is named in the Gospel.

The pretension implied in Gallicanism -- that only the schools and the churches of France possessed the truth as to the pope's authority, that they had been better able than any others to defend themselves against the encroachments of Rome -- was insulting to the sovereign pontiff and invidious to the other churches. It does not belong to one part of the Church to decide what council is oecumenical, and what is not. By what right was this honour refused in France to the Councils of Florence (1439) and the Lateran (1513), and accorded to that of Constance? Why, above all, should we attribute to the decision of this council, which was only a temporary expedient to escape from a deadlock, the force of a general principle, a dogmatic decree? And moreover, at the time when these decisions were taken, the council presented neither the character, nor the conditions, nor the authority of a general synod; it is not clear that among the majority of the members there was present any intention of formulating a dogmatic definition, nor is it proved that the approbation given by Martin V to some of the decrees extended to these. Another characteristic which is apt to diminish one's respect for Gallican ideas is their appearance of having been too much influenced, originally and evolutionally, by interested motives. Suggested by theologians who were under bonds to the emperors, accepted as an expedient to restore the unity of the Church, they had never been more loudly proclaimed than in the course of the conflicts which arose between popes and kings, and then always for the advantage of the latter. In truth they savoured too much of a courtly bias. "The Gallican Liberties", Joseph de Maistre has said, "are but a fatal compact signed by the Church of France, in virtue of which she submitted to the outrages of the Parliament on condition of being allowed to pass them on to the sovereign pontiff". The history of the assembly of 1682 is not such as to give the lie to this severe judgment. It was a Gallican -- no other than Baillet -- who wrote: "The bishops who served Philip the Fair were upright in heart and seemed to be actuated by a genuine, if somewhat too vehement, zeal for the rights of the Crown; whereas among those whose advice Louis XIV followed there were some who, under pretext of the public welfare, only sought to avenge themselves, by oblique and devious methods, on those whom they regarded as the censors of their conduct and their sentiments."

Even apart from every other consideration, the practical consequences to which Gallicanism led, and the way in which the State turned it to account should suffice to wean Catholics from it forever. It was Gallicanism which allowed the Jansenists condemned by popes to elude their sentences on the plea that these had not received the assent of the whole episcopate. It was in the name of Gallicanism that the kings of France impeded the publication of the pope's instructions, and forbade the bishops to hold provincial councils or to write against Jansenism -- or at any rate, to publish charges without endorsement of the chancellor. Bossuet himself, prevented from publishing a charge against Richard Simon, was forced to complain that they wished "to put all the bishops under the yoke in the essential matter of their ministry, which is the Faith". Alleging the Liberties of the Gallican Church, the French Parliaments admitted appels comme d'abus against bishops who were guilty of condemning Jansenism, or of admitting into their Breviaries the Office of St. Gregory, sanctioned by Rome; and on the same general principle they caused pastoral letters to be burned by the common executioner, or condemned to imprisonment or exile priests whose only crime was that of refusing the sacraments and Christian burial to Jansenists in revolt against the most solemn pronouncements of the Holy See. Thanks to these "Liberties", the jurisdiction and the discipline of the Church were almost entirely in the hands of the civil power, and Fenelon gave a fair idea of them when he wrote in one of his letters: "In practice the king is more our head than the pope, in France -- Liberties against the pope, servitude in relation to the king -The king's authority over the Church devolves upon the lay judges -- The laity dominate the bishops". And Fenelon had not seen the Constituent Assembly of 1790 assume, from Gallican principles, authority to demolish completely the Constitution of the Church of France. For there is not one article of that melancholy Constitution that did not find its inspiration in the writings of Gallican jurists and theologians. We may be excused the task of here entering into any lengthy proof of this; indeed the responsibility which Gallicanism has to bear in the sight of history and of Catholic doctrine is already only too heavy.

A. DEGERT

The Gallican Rite

This subject will be treated under the following six heads:

I. History and Origin;

II. MSS. and Other Sources;

III. The Liturgical Year;

IV. The Divine Office;

V. The Mass;

VI. The Occasional Services.

I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN

The name Gallican Rite is given to the rite which prevailed in Gaul from the earliest times of which we have any information until about the middle or end of the eighth century. there is no information before the fifth century and very little then; and throughout the whole period there was, to judge by existing documents and descriptions, so much diversity that, though the general outlines of the rite were of the same pattern, the name must not be taken to imply more than a very moderate amount of homogeneity. The Rite of Spain, fairly widely used from the fifth century to the end of the eleventh, and still lingering on as an archaeological survival in chapels at Toledo and Salamanca, was so nearly allied to the Gallican Rite that the term Hispano Gallican is often applied to the two. But the Spanish Mozarabic Rite has, like the allied Celtic, enough of an independent history to require separate treatment, so that though it will be necessary to allude to both by way of illustration, this article will be devoted primarily to the rite once used in what is now France. Of the origin of the Gallican Rite there are three principle theories, between two of which the controversy is not yet settled. These may be termed (1) the Ephesine, (2) the Ambrosian, and (3) the Roman theories.

(1) The first has been already mentioned under AMBROSIAN RITE and CELTIC RITE. This theory, which was first put forward by Sir W. Palmer in his "Origines Liturgicae", which was once very popular among Anglicans. According to it the Gallican Rite was referred to an original brought to Lyons from Ephesus by St. Pothinus and St. Irenaeus, who had received it through St. Polycarp from St. John the Divine. The idea originated partly in a statement in the eighth century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A. II in the British Museum, which refers the Gallican Divine Office (Cursus Gallorum) to such an origin, and partly in a statement of Coleman at the Synod of Whitby (664) respecting the Johannine origin of the Celtic Easter. The Cottonian tract is of little or no historical value; Coleman's notion was disproved at the time by St. Wilfred; and the Ephesine theory has now been given up by all serious liturgiologists. Mgr Duchesne, and his "Origines de culte chrÈtien", has finally disposed of the possibility of so complicated a rite as the Gallican having so early an origin as the second century.

(2) The second theory is that which Duchesne puts forward in the place of the Ephesine. He holds that Milan, not Lyons, was the principal centre of Gallican development. He lays great stress on the incontestable importance of Milan and the Church of Milan in the late fourth century, and conjectures that a liturgy of Oriental origin, introduced perhaps by the Cappadocian Auxentius, Bishop of Milan from 355 to 374, spread from that centre to Gaul, Spain, and Britain. He points out that "the Gallican Liturgy in the features which distinguish it from the Roman, betrays all the characteristics of the Eastern liturgies," and that "some of its formularies are to be found word for word in the Greek texts which were in use in the Churches of the Syro-Byzantine Rite either in the fourth century or somewhat later", and infers from this that, "the Gallican Liturgy is an Oriental liturgy, introduced into the West towards the middle of the fourth century". not, he does not, however, note that in certain other important peculiarities the Gallican Liturgy agrees with the Roman where the latter differs from the Oriental. Controverting the third or Roman theory of origin, he lays some stress upon the fact that Pope St. Innocent I (416) in his letter to Decentius of Gubbio spoke of usages which Mgr Duchesne recognizes as Gallican (e.g. the position of the Diptychs and the Pax), as "foreign importations" and did not recognize in them the ancient usage of his own Church, and he thinks it hard to explain why the African Church should have accepted the Roman reforms, while St. Ambrose himself a Roman. refused them. He assumes that the Ambrosian Rite is not really Roman, but Gallican, much Romanized at a later period, and that the Giubbio variations of which St. Innocent complained were borrowed from Milan.

(3) The third theory is perhaps rather complicated to state without danger of misrepresentation, and has not been so definitely stated as the other two by any one writer. It is held in part by Probst, Father Lucas, the Milanese liturgiologists, and many others whose opinion is of weight. In order to state it clearly it will be necessary to point out first certain details in which all the Latin or Western rites agree with one another in differing from the Eastern, and in this we speak only of the Mass, which is of far more importance than either the Divine Office, or the occasional services in determining origins. The Eastern Eucharistic offices of whatever rite are marked by the invariability of the priest's part. There are, it is true, alternative anaphoras which are used either ad libitum, as in the Syro-Jacobite Rite, or on certain days, as in Byzantine and East Syrian, but they are complete in themselves and do not contain passages appropriate to the day. The lections of course vary with the day in all rites, and varying antiphons, troparia, etc., are sung by the choir; but the priest's part remains fixed. In the Western rites, whether Hispano-Gallican, Ambrosian, or Roman, a very large proportion of the priest's part varies according to the day, and, as will be seen by the analysis of its Mass in this article, these variations are so numerous in the Gallican Rite that the fixed part even of the Prayer of the Consecration is strangely little. Certain of the varying prayers of the Hispano-Gallican Rite have a tendency to fall into couples, a Bidding Prayer, or invitation to pray, sometimes of considerable length and often partaking of the nature of a homily, addressed to the congregation, and a collect embodying the suggestions of the Bidding Prayer, addressed to God. These Bidding Prayers have survived in the Roman Rite of today in the Good Friday intercessory prayers, and they occur in a form borrowed later from the Gallican, in the ordination services, but in general the invitation to prayer is reduced to its lowest terms in the word Oremus. Another Western peculiarity is in the form of the recital of the Institution. The principal Eastern liturgies follow St. Paul's words in I Cor., xi, 23-25, and date the Institution by the betrayal, en te nykti, he paredidoto (in the night in which He was betrayed), and of the less important anaphoras, most either use the same expression or paraphrase it. The Western liturgies date from the Passion, Qui pridie quam pateretur, for which, though of course the fact is found there, there is no verbal Scriptural warrant. The Mozarabic of today uses the Pauline words, and no Gallican Recital of the Institution remains in full; but in both the prayer that follows is called (with alternative nomenclature in the Gallican) Post Pridie and the catchwords "Qui pridie" come at the end of the Post-Sanctus in the Gallican Masses, so that it is clear that this form existed in both. These variations from the Eastern usages are of an early date, and it is inferred from them, and from other considerations more historical than liturgical, that a liturgy with these peculiarities was the common property of Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Whether, as is most likely, it originated in Rome and spread thence to the countries under direct Roman influence, or whether it originated elsewhere and was adopted by Rome, there is no means of knowing. The adoption must have happened when liturgies were in rather a fluid state. The Gallicans may have carried to an extreme the changes begun at Rome, and may have retained some archaic features (now often mistaken for Orientalisms) which had been later dropped by Rome. At some period in the fourth century -- it has been conjectured that it was in the papacy of St. Damasus (366-84) -- reforms were made at Rome, the position of the Great Intercession and of the Pax were altered, the latter, perhaps because the form of the dismissal of the catechumens was disused, and the distinction between the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium was no longer needed, and therefore the want was felt of a position with some meaning to it for the sign of Christian unity, and the long and diffuse prayers were made into the short and crisp collects of the Roman type. It was then that the variable Post-Sanctus and Post-Pridie were altered into a fixed Canon of a type similar to the Roman Canon of today, though perhaps this Canon began with the clause which now reads, "Quam oblationem", but according to the pseudo-Ambrosian tract "De Sacramentis" once read "Fac nobis hanc oblationem". This may have been introduced by a short variable Post-Sanctus. This reform, possibly through the influence of St. Ambrose, was adopted at Milan, but not in Gaul and Spain. At a still later period changes were again made at Rome. They have been principally attributed to St. Leo (440-61), St. Gelasius (492-96), and St. Gregory (590-604), but the share these popes had in the reforms is not definitely known, though three varying sacramentaries have been called by their respective names. These later reforms were not adopted at Milan, which retained the books of the first reform, which are now known as Ambrosian.

Hence it may be seen that, roughly speaking, the Western or Latin Liturgy went through three phases, which may be called for want of better names the Gallican, the Ambrosian, and the Roman stages. The holders of the theory no doubt recognize quite clearly that the line of demarcation between these stages is rather a vague one, and that the alterations were in many respects gradual. Of the three theories of origin of the Ephesine may be dismissed as practically disproved. To both of the other two the same objection may be urged, that they are largely founded on conjecture and on the critical examination of documents of a much later date than the periods to which the conjectures relate. But at present there is little else to go upon. It may be well to mention also a theory put forward by Mr. W.C. Bishop in the "Church Quarterly" for July, 1908, to the effect that the Gallican Liturgy was not introduced into Gaul from anywhere, but was the original liturgy of that country, apparently invented and developed there. He speaks of an original independence of Rome (of course liturgically only) followed by later borrowings. This does not seem to exclude the idea that Rome and the West may have had the germ of the Western Rite in common. Again the theory is conjectural and is only very slightly stated in the article. The later history of the Gallican Rite until the time of its abolition as a separate rite is obscure. In Spain there was a definite centre in Toledo, whose influence was felt over the whole peninsula, even after the coming of the Moors. Hence it was that the Spanish Rite was much more regulated than the Gallican, and Toledo at times, though not very successfully, tried to give liturgical laws even to Gaul, though probably only to the Visigothic part of it. In the greater part of France there was liturgical anarchy. There was no capital to give laws to the whole country, and the rite developed there variously in various places, so that among the scanty fragments of the service-books that remain there is a marked absence of verbal uniformity, though the main outlines of the services are of the same type. Several councils attempted to regulate matters a little, but only for certain provinces. Among these were the Councils of Vannes (465), Agde (506), Vaison (529), Tours (567), Auxerre (578), and the two Councils of Mâcon (581, 623). But all along there went on a certain process of Romanizing due to the constant applications to the Holy See for advice, and there is also another complication in the probable introduction during the seventh century, through the Columbanine missionaries of elements of Irish origin. The changes towards the Roman Rite happened rather gradually during the course of the late seventh and eighth century, and seem synchronous with the rise of the Maires du Palais, and their development into Kings of France. Nearly all the Gallican books of the later Merovingian period, which are all that are left, contain many Roman elements. In some cases there is reason to suppose that the Roman Canon was first introduced into an otherwise Gallican Mass, but the so-called Gelasian Sacramentary, the principle MS. of which is attributed to the Abbey of St. Dennis and the early eighth century, is an avowedly Roman book, though containing Gallican additions and adaptations. And the same may be said of what is left of the undoubtedly Frankish book known as the "Missale Francorum" of the same date. Mgr Duchesne attributes a good deal of this eighth-century Romanizing tendency to St. Boniface, though he shows that it had begun before his day. The Roman Liturgy was adopted at Metz in the time of St. Chrodegang (742-66). the Roman chant was introduced about 760, and by a decree of Pepin, quoted in Charlemagne's "Admonitio Generalis" in 789, the Gallican chant was abolished in its favour. Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne's principal liturgical advisor, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne's empire, and this "composite liturgy", as Mgr Duchesne says, "from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use". More than half a century later, when Charles the Bald wished to see what the ancient Gallican Rite had been like, it was necessary to import Spanish priests to celebrate it in his presence.

It should be noted that the name Gallican has also been applied to two other uses: (1) a French use introduced by the Normans into Apulia and Sicily. This was only a variant of the Roman Rite. (2) the reformed Breviaries of the French dioceses in the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. These have nothing to do with the ancient Gallican Rite.

II. MSS. AND OTHER SOURCES

There are no MSS. of the Gallican Rite earlier than the later part of the seventh century, thought the descriptions in the letters of St. Germanus of Paris (555-76) take one back another century. The MSS. are:--

(1) The Reichenau Fragments (Carlsruhe, 253), described (no. 8) in Delisle's "Memoire sur d'anciens Sacramentaires." -- These were discovered by Mone in 1850 in a palimpsest MS. from the Abbey of Rerichenau in the library of Carlsruhe. The MS., which is late seventh century, had belonged to John II, Bishop of Constance (760-81). It contains eleven Masses of purely Gallican type, one of which is in honour of St. Germanus of Auxerre, but the others do not specify any festival. One Mass, except the post Post-Pridie, which is in prose is entirely in hexameter verse. Mone published them with a facsimile in his "Lateinische und Griechische Menssen aus dem zweiten bis sechsten Jahrhundert" (Frankfort 1850). They were reprinted in Migne's "Patrologia Latina" (Vol. CXXXVIII), and by Neale and Forbes in "The Ancient Liturgy of the Gallican Church" (Burntisland, 1855-67).

(2) The Peyron, Mai, and Bunsen Fragments. Of these disjointed palimpsest leaves, those of Mai and Peyron were found in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and those of Bunsen at St. Gall. Peyron's were printed in his "M.T. Ciceronis Orationum Fragmenta inedita" (Stuttgart, 1824), MAI's in his "Scriptorum Veterum Vaticana Collectio", and Bunsen's in his "Analecta Ante-Niceana". All these were reprinted by C. E. Hammond: Peyron's and Bunsen's in his "Ancient Liturgy of Antioch" (Oxford, 1879), and MAI's in his "Ancient Liturgies" (Oxford, 1878). The latest are also in Migne's "Patrologia Latina" with Mone's Riechenau fragments. the Peyron fragment contains part of what looks like a Lenten Contestatio (Preface) with other prayers of Gallican type. The Bunsen fragment contains part of a Mass for the Dead (Post-Sactus, Post Pridie) and several pairs of Bidding Prayers and Collects, the former having the title "Exhortatio" or "Exhortatio Matutina. The Mai fragments begin with part of a Bidding Prayer and contain a fragment of a Contestatio, with that title, and fragments of other prayers, two of which have the title "Post Nomina", and two others which seem to be prayers "Ad Pacem".

(3) The Missale Gothicum (Vatican, Queen Christina MSS. 317). -- Described by Delisle, No. 3 A MS. of the end of the seventh century, which once belonged to the Petau Library. The name is due to a fifteenth century note at the beginning of the book, and hence it has been attributed by Tommasi and Mabillon to Narbonne, which was in the Visigothic Kingdom. Mgr Duchesne, judging by the inclusion of Masses for the feasts of St. Symphorian and St. LÈger (d. 680), attributes it to Autun. The Masses are numbered, the MS. beginning with Christmas Eve, which is numbered "III". Probably there were once two Advent Masses, as in the "Missale Gallicanum". There are eighty-one numbered sections, of which the last is the first prayer of "Missa Romensif cottidiana", with which the MS. breaks off. The details of the Masses in this book are given in the section of the present article on the liturgical year. The Masses are all Gallican as to order, but many of the actual prayers are Roman. The "Missale Gothicum" has been printed by Tommasi (Codices Sacramentorum, Rome, 1680) Mabillon (De Liturgiâ Gallicanâ, Paris, 1685), Muratori (Liturgia Romana Vetus, Venice, 1748), Neale and Forbes (op. cit.), and Migne's "Patrologia Latina" (Vol. LXXII).

(4) Missale Gallicanum Vetus (Vatican. Palat. 493). -- Described by Delisle, No. 5 The MS., which is of the end of the seventh, or the early part of the eighth, century is only a fragment. It begins with a Mass for the feast of St. Germanus of Auxerre (9 Oct.), after which come prayers for the Blessing of Virgins and Widows, two Advent Masses, the Christmas Eve Mass, the Expositio and Traditio Symboli, and other ceremonies preparatory to Baptism; The Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday ceremonies and the baptismal service, Masses for the Sundays after Easter up to the Rogation Mass, where the MS. breaks off. The Masses, as in the Gothicum, are Gallican in order with many Roman prayers. The Good Friday prayers are, with a few verbal variations, exactly those from the Roman Missal. The MS. has been printed by Tommasi, Mabillon, Muratori, and Neale and Forbes (op.cit.), and in Vol. LXXII of Migne's "Patrologia Latina".

(5) The Lexeuil Lectinary (Paris, Bibl. Nat., 9427). -- This MS., which is of the seventh century was discovered by Mabillon in the Abbey of Luxeuill, but from its containing among its very few saints' days the feast of St. Genevieve, Dom Morin (Revue BÈnÈdictine, 1893) attributes it to Paris. It contains the Prophetical Lessons, epistles and Gospels for the year from Christmas Eve onwards (for the details of which see the section of this article on the liturgical years). At the end are the lessons of a few special Masses, for the burial of a bishop, for the dedication of a church, when a bishop preaches, "et plebs decimas reddat", when a deacon is ordained, when a priest is blessed, "in profectione itineris", and "lectiones cotidianae". This lectionary is purely Gallican with no apparent Roman influence. The MS. has not been printed in its entirety, but Mabillon in "De Liturgiâ Gallicanâ gives the references to all the lessons and the beginnings and endings of the text.

(6) The Letters of St. Germanus of Paris. -- These were printed by Martène (De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus Bassano, 1788) from an MS. at Autun, and are given also in Vol. LXXII of Migne's "Patrologia Latina". There appears to be no reason to doubt that they are genuine. They contain mystical interpretations of the ceremonies of the Mass and of other services. Mgr Duchesne says of the descriptions, on which the interpretations are based, that "We may reconstruct from the letters a kind of Ordo Gallicanus". (See section of this article on the Mass.)

Much side light is thrown on the Gallican Rite by the Celtic books (see CELTIC RITE), especially by the Stowe and Bobbio Missals. The latter has been called Gallican and attributed to the Province of Besançon, but it is now held to be Irish in a much Romanized form, though of Continental provenance, being quite probably from the originally Irish monastery of Bobbio, where Mabillon found it. A comparison with the Ambrosian books (SEE AMBROSIAN LITURGY AND RITE) may also be of service, while most lacunae in our knowledge of the Gallican Rite may reasonably be conjecturally filled up from the Mozarabic books, which even in their present form are those of substantially the same rite. There are also liturgical allusions in certain early writers: St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Sulpicius Severus (d. about 400), St. Caesarius of Arles (d. about 542), and especially St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595), and some information may be gathered from the decrees of the Gallican councils mentioned above.

The above are all that exist as directly Gallican sources, but much information may also be gleaned from the books of the transition period, which, though substantially Roman, were much edited with Germanic tendencies and contained a large amount which was of a Gallican rather than a Roman type. The principal of these are:

(1) The Gelasian Sacramentary, of which three MSS. exist, one in the Vatican (Queen Christina MS. 316), and one at Zurich (Rheinau 30, and one at St.Gall (MS. 348). The MSS. are of the early eighth century. The groundwork is Roman, with Gallican additions and modifications. Evidence for the Gallican rites of ordination and some other matters is derived from this book. The Vatican MS. was published by Tommasi and Muratori, and a complete edition from all three MSS. was edited by H. A. Wilson (Oxford, 1894).

(2) The Missale Francorum (Vatican Q. Christina MS. 257, Delisle No. 4). -- A fragment of a Sacramentary of a similar type to the Gelasian, though not identical with it. Printed by Tommasi, Mabillon, and Muratori.

(3) The Gregorian Sacramentary. -- Of this there are many MSS. It represents the Sacramentary sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, after it had been rearranged and supplemented by Gelasian and Gallican editions in France. One MS. of it was published by Muratori. In this, as in many others, the editions form a supplement, but in some (e.g. the Angoulême Sacramentary, Bibl. Nat. Lat. 816) the Gelasian additions are interpolated throughout.

III. THE LITURGICAL YEAR

The Luxeuil Lectionary, the Gothicum and Gallicum Missals, and the Gallican adaptations of the Hieronymian Martyrology are the chief authorities on this point, and to these may be added some information to be gathered from the regulations of the Councils of Agde (506), Orleans (541), Tour (567), and Mâcon (581), and from the "Historia Francorum" of St. Gregory of Tours, as to the Gallican practice in the sixth century. It is probable that there were many variations in different times and places, and that the influence of the Hieronymian Martyrology brought about many gradual assimilations to Rome. The year, as is usual, began with Advent. The Council of Mâcon, which arranges for three days' fast a week, during that season, mentions St. Martin's Day as the key-day for Advent Sunday, so that, as a present in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, there were six Sundays of Advent (but only two Advent Masses survive in the Gallicanum.) The Gothicum and the Luxeuil Lectionary both begin with Christmas Eve. Then following Christmas Day; St. Stephen; St. John (according to Luxeuil); St. James and St. John (according to the Gothicum, which agrees with the Hieronymian Martyrology and with a Syriac Menology of 412, quoted by Duchesne. The Mozarabic has for 29 December "Sanctus Jacobus Frater Domini", but that is the other St. James); Holy Innocents; Circumcision; St. Genevieve (Luxeuil Lectionary only. Her day is 3 Jan.); Sunday after the Circumcision (Luxeuil); Vigil of Epiphany; Epiphany; two Sundays after Epiphany (Luxeuil); "Festum Sanctae Mariae" (Luxeuil, called "Assumptio" in the Gothicum, 18 Jan.); St. Agnes (Gothicum); after which follow in the Gothicum, out of their proper places, Sts. Cecily (22 Nov.); Clement (23 Nov.); Saturninus (29 Nov.); Andrew (30 Nov.); and Eulalia (10 Dec.); the Conversion of St. Paul (Gothicum); St. Peter's Chair (in both. This from its position after the Conversion of St. Paul in the Gothicum, ought to be St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, 22 Feb.; but it will not work out as such with the two Sundays between it and the Epiphany and three between it and Lent, as it appears in the Luxeuil Lectionary; so it must mean St. Peter's Chair at Rome, 18 Jan., which is known to have been the festival kept in Gaul; three Sundays after St. Peter's Chair (Luxeuil); Initium Quadragesimae; five Lenten Masses (Gothicum); Palm Sunday (Luxeuil); "Symboli Traditio" (Gothicum); Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week, called by the name still used in the Ambrosian Rite, Authentica Hebdomada (Luxeuil); Maundy Thursday; Good Friday; Easter Eve; Easter Day and the whole week; Low Sunday, called in both Clausum Paschae; four more Sundays after Easter (Luxeuil); Invention of the Cross (Gothicum, 3 May); St. John the Evangelist (Gothicum, 6 May); three Rogation Days; Ascension; Sunday after Ascension (Luxeuil); Pentecost; Sunday after Pentecost (Luxeuil); Sts. Ferreolus and Ferru (Gothicum, 16 June); Nativity of St. John the Baptist; Sts. Peter and Paul; Decollation of St. John the Baptist; Missa de Novo fructus (sic, Luxeuil); St. Sixtus (Gothicum, 6 Aug.); St. Lawrence (Gothicum, 10 Aug.); St. Hippolytus (Gothicum 13 Aug.); Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian (Gothicum, 16 Sept.); Sts. John and Paul (Gothicum, 26 June); St. Symphorian (Gothicum, 22 Aug.); St. Maurice and his companions (Gothicum, 22 Sept.); St. Leger (Gothicum, 2 Oct.); St. Martin (Gothicum, 22 Nov.). Both books also have Commons of Martyrs and Confessors, the Luxeuil has Commons of bishops and deacons for a number of other Masses, and the Gothicum has six Sunday Masses. The Gallicanum has a Mass in honour of St. Germanus of Auxerre before the two Advent Masses. In both the Gothicum and Gallicanum a large space is given to the services of the two days before Easter, and in the latter the Expositio and Traditio Symboli are given at great length. The moveable feasts depended, of course, on Easter. When the Roman Church altered the Easter cycle from the old computation on a basis of 84 years to the new cycle of 532 of Victorius Aquitaine in 457, the Gallican Church, unlike the Celts, did the same; but when, in 525, the Roman Church adopted the 19 years cycle of Dionysius Exiguus, the Gallican Church continued to use the cycle of Victorius, until the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. Lent began with the first Sunday, not with Ash Wednesday. There is a not very intelligible passage in the canons of the Council of Tours (567) to the effect that all through August there were "festivitates et missae sanctorum", but this is not borne out by the existing Sacramentaries of the Lectionary.

IV. THE DIVINE OFFICE

There is curiously little information on this point, and it is not possible to reconstruct the Gallican Divine Office from the scanty allusions that exist. It seems probable that there was considerable diversity in various times and places, through councils, both in France and Spain, tried to bring about some uniformity. The principle authorities are the Councils of Agde (506) and Tours (567), and allusions in the writings of St. Gregory of Tours and St. Caesarius of Arles. These and other details have been gathered together by Mabillon in his "De Liturgiâ Gallicanâ", and his essay on the Gallican Cursus is not yet superseded. The general arrangement and nomenclature were very similar to those of the Celtic Rite (q.v.). There were two principal services, Matins (Ad Matutinam, Matutinum) and Vespers (ad Duodecimam, ad Vesperas Lucernarium); and four Lesser Hours, Prime, or Ad Secundum, Terce, Sext, and None; and probably two night services, Complin, or ad initium noctis, and Nocturns. But the application of these names is sometimes obscure. It is not quite clear whether Nocturns and Lauds were not joined together as Matins; Caesarius speaks of Prima, while the Gallicanum speaks of Ad secundum; Caesarius distinguishes between Lucernarium and Ad Duodeciman, while Aurelian distinguishes between Ad Duodeciman and Complin; the Gothicum speaks of Vespera Paschae and Initium Noctis Paschae, and the Gallicanum has Ad Duodeciman Paschae. The distribution of the Psalter is not known. The Council of Tours orders six psalms at Sext and twelve Ad Duodecimam, with Alleluia (presumably as Antiphon) For Matins there is a curious arrangement which reminds one of that in the Rule of St. Columbanus (see CELTIC RITE, III). Normally in summer (apparently from Easter to July) "sex antiphonae binis psalmis" are ordered. This evidently means twelve psalms, two under each antiphon. In August there seem to have been no psalms, because there were festivals and Masses of saints. "Toto Augusto manicationes fiant, quia festivitates sunt et missae sanctorum". The meaning of manicationes and of the whole statement is obscure. In September there were fourteen psalms, two under each antiphon; in October twenty-four psalms, three to each antiphon; and from December to Easter thirty psalms, three to each antiphon. Caesarius orders six psalms at Prime with the hymn "Fulgentis auctor aetheris", two lessons, one from the old and one from the New Testament, and a capitellum"; six psalms at Terce, Sext, and None, with an antiphon, a hymn, a lesson, and a capitellum; at Lucernarium a "Psalmus Directaneus", whatever that may be (cf. the "Psalmus Directus" of the Ambrosian Rite), two antiphons, a hymn, and a capitellum; and ad Duodecimam, eighteen psalms, an antiphon, hymn, lesson, and capitellum. From this it seems as though Lucernarium and Ad Duodecimam made up Vespers. combining the twelfth hour of the Divine Office (that is, of the recitation of the Psalter with its accompaniments) with a service for what, without any intention of levity, one may call "lighting-up time". The Ambrosian and Mozarabic Vespers are constructed on this principle, and so is the Byzantine Hesperinos.

Caesarius mentions a blessing given by the bishop at the end of Lucernarium, "cumque expleto Lucernario benedictionem populo dedisset"; and the following is an order of the Council of Agde (canon 30):"Et quia convenit ordinem ecclesiae ab omnibus aequaliter custodiri studendum est ut ubique fit et post antiphonas collectiones per ordinem ab episcopis vel presbyteris dicantur et hymni matutini vel vesperenti diebus omnibus decantentur et in conclusione matutinarum vel vespertinarum missarum post hymnos, capitella de psalmis dicantur et plebs collecta oratione ad vesperam ab Episcopo cum benedictione dimittatur". The rules of Caesarius and Aurelian both speak of two nocturns with lessons, which include on the feasts of martyrs lessons from their passions. They order also Magnificat to be sung at Lauds, and during the Paschal days; and on Sundays and greater festivals Gloria in Excelsis. There is a short passage which throws a little light upon the Lyons use of the end of the fifth century in an account of the Council of Lyons in 499, quoted by Mabillon. The council assembled by King Gundobad of Burgundy began on the feast of St. Just. The vigil was kept at his tomb. This began with a lesson from the Pentateuch ("a Moyse") in which occurred the words "Sed ego indurabo cor ejus", etc. (Ex., vii,3). Then psalms were sung and a lesson was read from the prophets, in which occurred the words "Vade, et dices populo huic: Audite audientes", etc. (Isaias, vi, 9), the more psalms and a lesson from the Gospels containing the words "Vae tibi, Corozain!" etc. (Matt. xi, 21; or Luke x, 13) and a lesson from the Epistles ("ex Apostolo") which contained the words "An divitias bonitatis ejus", etc. (Rom., ii, 4). St. Agobard in the ninth century mentions that at Lyons there were no canticles except from the Psalms, no hymns written by poets, and no lessons except from Scripture. Mabillon says that though in his day Lyons agreed with Rome in many things, especially in the distribution of the Psalter, and admitted lessons from the Acts of the Saints, there were still no hymns except at Complin, and he mentions a similar rule as to hymns at Vienne. But canon 23 of the Council of Tours (767) allowed the use of the Ambrosian hymns. Though the Psalter of the second recension of St. Jerome, now used in all the churches of the Roman Rite except the Vatican Basilica, is known as the "Gallican", while the older, a revision of the "Vetus Itala" used now in St. Peter's at Rome only, is known as the "Roman", it does not seem that the Gallican Psalter was used even in Gaul until a comparatively later date, though it spread thence over nearly all the West. At present the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Psalters are variants of the "Roman", with peculiarities of their own. Probably the decadence of the Gallican Divine Office was very gradual. In the eighth century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A. II. the "Cursus Gallorum" is distinguished from the "Cursus Romanorum", the "Cursus Scottorum" and the Ambrosian, all of which seem to have been going on then. The unknown writer, though his opinion is of no value on the origin of the "Cursus", may well have known about some of these of his own knowledge; but through the seventh century there are indications of a tendency to adopt the Roman or the Monastic "cursus" instead of the Gallican, or to mix them up, a tendency which was resisted at times by provincial councils.

V. THE MASS

The chief authorities for the Gallican Mass are the letters of St. Germanus of Paris (555-576); and by a comparison of these with the extant Sacramentaries, not only of Gaul but of the Celtic Rite, with the Irish tracts on the Mass, with the books of the still existing Mozarabic Rite, and with the descriptions of the Spanish Mass given by St. Isidore, one may arrive at a fairly clear general idea of the service, though there exists no Gallican Ordinary of the Mass and no Antiphoner. Mgr. Duchesne, in his "Origines du Cult chrÈtien", has given a very full account constructed on this basis, though some will differ from him in his supplying certain details from Ambrosian books, and in his claiming the Bobbio Sacramentary as Ambrosian rather than Celtic.

The Order of this Mass is as follows:--

(1) The Entrance.-- Here an Antiphona (Introit) was sung. Nothing is said of any Praeparatio Sacerdotis, but there is one given in the Celtic Stowe Missal (see CELTIC RITE); and the Irish tracts describe a preliminary preparation of the Chalice, as does also the Mozarabic Missal. As no Antiphoner exists, we have no specimen of a Gallican Officium or Introit. Duchesne gives a Mozarabic one, which has something of the form of a Roman Responsary. The Antiphona was followed by a proclamation of silence by the deacon, and the salutation Dominus sit semper vobiscum by the priest. This is still the Mozarabic form of Dominus vobiscum.

(2) The Canticles.-- These, according to St. Germanus, were (i) The Ajus (agios) which may be the Greek Trisagion (hagios Theos, k.t.l.) or the Greek of the Sanctus, probably the latter which is still used elsewhere in the Mozarabic, and seems to be referred to in the Ajus, ajus, ajus of the life of St. GÈry of Cambrai and the Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus of the Council of Vaison (529). In the Bobbio there is a prayer Post Ajus. (ii) The Kyrie Eleison, sung by three boys. This has disappeared from the Mozarabic. It is mentioned by the Council of Vaison (529). (iii) The Canticle of Zacharias (Benedictus). this is called Prophetia and there are collects post Prophetiam in the Riechenau fragments, the Gothicum and the Bobbio. The Mozarabic and Celtic books have Gloria in Excelsis here, but in the former the "Benedictus" is used instead on the Sunday before the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, called Dominica pro adventu S. Johannis. A different Canticle, Sanctus Deus Angelorum was used, according to St. Germanus, in Lent.

(3) The Lessons-- These were the Lectio Prophetica from the Old Testament, and the Lectio Apostolica or Epistle. In Paschal time the Apocalypse took the place of the Lectio Prophetica, and a lesson from the Acts of the Apostles that of the Epistle. In Lent the Histories of the Old Testament were read instead of the Prophetical Lesson, and on Saint's Days the Acts of the Saints. This agrees with the present Mozarabic, except in the Acts of the Saints, and with the Luxeuil Lectionary, and the Bobbio. The Acts of the Saints were used as Mass Lessons in the Ambrosian Rite as late as the twelfth century. According to St. Germanus the second lesson followed immediately on the first, but in the Mozarabic the Benedicite and a Psallendo (Responsary) come between them. In the Gallican the Benedicite and the Responsorium followed the Epistle. The Bobbio has a fixed collect, Post Benedictionem, which is that which follows Benedictus es (Dan., iii) on Ember Saturdays in the Roman Missal.

(4) The Gospel-- This was preceded by a procession in tribunal analogii, i.e. to the ambo. The word Analogion is still the Byzantine term for the desk from which the Gospel is read. A clerk again sang the Ajus, and seven lighted candles were carried. The clerks cried out Gloria tibi, Domine. Sanctus was sung as they returned. Nothing is said about Alleluia preceding the Gospel, nor is there any in the Mozarabic . The Celtic Rite as shown in the Stowe Missal, included an Alleluia at that point, as do most other rites.

(5) Here, according to St. Germanus, followed the Homily.

(6) The Prex.-- The passage of St. Germanus is "Preces vero psallere levitas pro populo ab origine libri Moysaici ducit exordium, ut audita Apostoli praedicatione levitae pro populo deprecentur et sacerdotes prostrati ante Dominum pro peccatis populi intercedant". Duschene makes this refer to a Bidding Litany to follow the Homily, but judging from the analogy of the Stowe Mass, which places a litany between the Epistle and Gospel, and of the Mozarabic, which on Sundays in Lent has a very similar litany between the Prophetical Lesson and the Epistle, said by the priest who "prosternat se ad pedem altaris", it might be possible to understand "audita Apostoli praedicatione" to mean "after the Epistle". The Roman Good Friday prayers, however, which are similar in import to this litany, follow the Gospel; and so does the Great Synapte of Clementine, the Byzantine, and other Eastern rites which have petitions of the same type, and one of which is probably the original source of the Prex. The Council of Lyons (517) also mentions "orationem plebis quae post evangelia legeretur". No Gallican text of this litany exists, but it was probably much of the same type as that of the Stowe, which is called "Deprecatio Sancti Martini, and that which takes the place of the "Gloria in Excelsis" in Lent in the Ambrosian. The Prex is followed by a prayer called Post Precem.

(7) The Dismissal of the Catechumens.-- This is mentioned by St. Germanus as an ancient rite of which the form was still observed. He says in almost the same words which James of Edessa, speaking of the Syrian Rite, used a century later, that the deacon proclaims "juxta antiquum Ecclesiae ritum". No mention is made by St. Germanus of penitents, but the Council of Lyons just mentioned gave them permission to remain until after the Prex. In the Stowe Mass, as in the Roman, there is no allusion to catechumens or penitents.

(8) The Great Entrance and Offertory.-- It seems appropriate to give the Byzantine name to this ceremony, for, according to St. Germanus's description, it resembled the Great Entrance of that rite rather than anything which is now found in either the Roman or the Mozarabic of today, or in the Celtic Rite; and the Procession of the Vecchioni at Milan (see AMBROSIAN RITE) is altogether a different matter. First came the closing of the doors. This took place immediately after the Dismissal of the Catechumens in the Liturgy of St. James, and is put at the same point in the description of James of Edessa. In the Byzantine Rite of today it comes after the Great Entrance. In the Roman Rite there is no sign of it. St. Germanus gives it a mystical meaning about the gates of the soul, but James of Edessa gives the real origin, the guarding of the mysteries against the heathen. Then the already prepared Elements were brought in, the bread in a vessel shaped like a tower, the mixed wine and water in a chalice. St. Germanus speaks of them as Corpus Domini and Sanguis Christi (cf. The wording of the Byzantine hymn known as the Cherubicon). While this was done the choir sang what St. Germanus called the Sonus. The Mozarabic Missal calls the Responsory that comes at this point the Lauda, and the name Sonus is given to very similar Responsories sung at Vespers and Lauds. While the elements were being offered the choir sang the Laudes, which included Alleluia. This is the Mozarabic Sacraficium, the Roman Offertorium. St. Isidore gives the latter name to it. The tract in the Irish "Leabhar Breac" speaks of elevating the chalice "quando canitur Imola Deo sacrificium laudis", but the Stowe, being a priest's book, is silent about any antiphon here, though the prayers said by the priest are given. In the Stowe Missal the Offertory, which is a good deal Romanized, is preceded by the Creed. In the Ambrosian, as in the Byzantine, the Creed follows the Offertory. In the Gallican of St. Germanus there was as yet no Creed. By the time of James of Edessa it had got into the Syrian Liturgy, but the Roman did not adopt it until much later (see CREED, LITURGICAL USE OF). St. Germanus mentions three veils, the "palla linostima" [linostema is defined by St. Isidore (Orig., 19,22) as a material woven of flax and wool] "corporalis palla" of pure linen, "super quam oblatio ponitur", and a veil of silk adorned with gold and gems with which the oblation was covered. Probably the "linostima" covered the chalice, like the modern pall.

(9) The prayer that follows is not mentioned by St. Germanus, but is given in the Gallican books. It is preceded by a Bidding Prayer. The titles of the two are Praefatio Missae and Collectio (the usual expression being "Collectio sequitur"). They vary with the day and are found in the Gothicum, Gallicanum, Bobbio, and some of the Reichenau fragments. St. Isidore mentions them as the first two of the prayers of the Mass. In the Mozarabic the Bidding Prayer is called Missa, and is followed by "Agyos, agyos, agyos, Domine Deus Rex aeterne tibi laudes et gratias", sung by the choir, and an invariable invitation to prayer. The variable prayer which follows is called Alia Oratio. The "Missa" is almost always a Bidding Prayer addressed to the people, while the "Alia Oratio" is nearly always addressed to God, but sometimes both are Bidding Prayers and sometimes both are prayers to God.

(10) The Diptychs.-- St. Germanus says "Nomina defunctorum ideo hor illa recitantur qua pallium tollitur". The Gallican books and the Bobbio have variable prayers Post Nomina, and the Reichenau fragments have also prayers Ante Nomina, which are sometimes Bidding Prayers as are sometimes the prayers Post Nomina in the Gothicum. The form of the Intercession is given in the Stowe, but moved to its Roman positions in the Gelasian Canon. The Mozarabic retains the old position and has a prayer Post Nomina, which St. Isidore calls the third prayer. The position of the Great Intercession at this point exactly is peculiar to the Hispano-Gallican Rite, but it comes very near to the Alexandrian position, which is in the middle of the Preface, where a rather awkward break is made for it. The West Syrian and Byzantine Liturgies place the Great Intercession after the Epiklesis, the East Syrian before the Epiklesis, and the Roman and Ambrosian divide it in two, placing the Intercession for the Living before, and that for the Dead after the Consecration, with Commemorations of Saints with each.

(11) The Pax.-- St. Germanus mentions that the Kiss of Peace came next, as it does now in the Mozarabic. St. Isidore associates it with the fourth prayer, which in the Gallican and Mozarabic books is called Ad Pacem. The Roman Rite, which has completely obliterated all distinction between the Missa Catachumenorum and the Missa Fidelium, associates this sign of unity, not with the beginning of the latter, but with the Communion, and this position is as old as the letter of St. Innocent I (416) to Decentius of Giubbio. The Ambrosian now follows the Roman, as did the Celtic Rite when the Stowe Missal was written, but the Bobbio retained the collect Ad Pacem in its original place, though it was probably not used with the Gelasian canon.

(12) The Anaphora-- St. Germanus merely mentions the Sursum Corda, and says nothing about what follows it. The dialogue was probably in the usual form, though the curious variation in the Mozarabic Rite makes that somewhat uncertain. Then follows the Contestatio or Immolatio, called by the Mozarabic Books Illatio, which is in the Roman Rite the Praefatio. St. Isidore calls it the fifth prayer and uses the word Illatio for it. The Gallican books, the Bobbio, and the Mozarabic Missal give a variable one for every Mass, and the Gallican books often give two. The general form is the same as the Roman, perhaps more diffuse in its expressions. Usually the words Per quem alone at the end of the proper section indicate the conclusion. The Mozarabic Illations end in varying ways, always of course leading up to the Sanctus.

(13) The Sanctus.-- The Gallican wording is not found, but there is no reason to suspect any variations unless the Mozarabic "gloria majestatis tuae" was also Gallican.

(14) The Post-Sanctus.-- This takes up the idea of the Sanctus and amplifies it, leading on to the Recital of the Institution. It generally, but not always, begins with "Vere Sanctus, vere Benedictus". There is a variable Post-Sanctus for every Mass. In the Gallican books this passage ends with some expression, generally simply "per Christum Dominum nostrum", which serves as the antecedent to "Qui pridie"; but, owing to the interpolated prayer" Adesto, adesto Jesu", etc., the Recital of the Institution begins with a fresh sentence with no relative. All Liturgies except the Roman have some form of Post-Sanctus. Even the Ambrosian has one for Easter Eve, and the Celtic Stowe Missal seems to use one with or without the Roman Canon. The Bobbio, completely Romanized from the Preface onwards, does not include one among its variables. In one Mass in the Gothicum (Easter Eve) the Post-Sanctus (so called by Neale and Forbes) contains a quite definite Epiklesis, but the prayer which follows is called ad fractionem panis, so it may be really a Post-Pridie.

(15) The Recital of the Institution.-- "Qui pridie quam pro nostra omnium salute pateretur" is all that exists of the Gallican form, as catchwords, so to speak. This, except that "et" comes there before "omnium", is the Ambrosian. The Stowe and the Bobbio have the Roman "Qui pridie quam pateretur", etc., but the corrector of the Stowe has added the Ambrosian ending "passionem meam praedicabitis", etc. The Mozarabic, though Post-Pridie is the name of the prayer which follows, has (after an invocatory prayer to our Lord) "D.N.J. C. in qua nocte tradebatur", etc., following St. Paul's words in I Cor., xi, in which it agrees with the principal Eastern Liturgies. This is probably a late alteration.

(16) The Post-Pridie, called also Post Mysterium and Post Secreta, these two being the more usual Gallican names, while Post-Pridie is the universal Mozarabic name. This is a variable prayer, usually addressed to Christ or to the Father, but occasionally in the Mozarabic in the form of a Bidding Prayer. The petitions often include something of an oblation, like the Unde et memores, and often a more or less definite Epiklesis. Of the eleven Masses in the Reichenau fragment four contain a definite Epiklesis in this prayer, one has a Post-Pridie with no Epiklesis, one is unfinished, but has no Epiklesis as far as it goes, and in the rest this prayer is wanting. In the Gothicum there is generally no Epiklesis, but nine of the Masses there have one of some sort, in some cases vague. In the Mozarabic this prayer is usually only the oblation, though rarely there is an Epiklesis. It is followed there by a fixed prayer resembling the clause Per quem haec omnia in the Roman Canon.

(17) The Fraction.-- Of this St. Germanus says only that it takes place, and an antiphon is sung during it. The only rite which now retains this antiphon always is the Ambrosian, where it is called Confractorium. The Mozarabic has substituted for it the recitation of the Creed, "praeter in locis in quibus erit antiphona propria ad confractionem panis", which is chiefly during Lent, and in votive Masses. In the Stowe there is a long responsory, apparently not variable. No Gallican Confratorium remains. The fraction is not described, but in the Celtic Rite (q.v.) there was a very complicated fraction, and in the Mozarabic the Sacred Host is divided into nine particles, seven of which are arranged in the form of a cross. The Council of Tours (567) directs that the particles shall be arranged "non in imaginario ordine sed sub crucis titulo", so that it is probable that the Gallican fraction was similarly elaborate. The Stowe Gaelic tract speaks of two fractions, the first into two halves with a re-uniting and a commixture, the second into a number of particles varying with the rank of the day. The "Leabhar Breac" tract only mentions the first. Dom L. Gougaud (Les rites de la Consecration et de la Fraction dans la Liturgie Celtique", in "Report of the 19th Eucharistic Congress" (p. 359) conjectures that the first was the Host of the celebrant, the second that for the communicants.

(18) The Pater Noster.-- This was preceded by a variable introduction after the plan of Praeceptis salutaribus moniti and was followed by a variable Embolism. These are entitled in the Gallican books Ante Orationem Dominicam and Post Orationem Dominicam. In the Mozarabic the introduction Ad orationem Dominicam is variable, the Embolism is not.

(19) The Commixture.-- Of the manner of this in the Gallican Rite there is no information, nor is there any record of the words used. But see CELTIC RITE. In the Mozarabic the particle Regnum (see MOZARABIC RITE) is dipped in the chalice with the words "Vicit Leo de tribu Juda, radix David, Alleluia. Qui sedes super Cherubim, radix David, Alleluia", and the particle is dropped into the chalice, the priest saying "Sancta sanctis; et conjunctio corporis D.N.J.C. sit sumentibus et potantibus nobis ad veniam et defunctis fidelibus praestetur ad requiem."

(20) The Benediction.-- This when pronounced by a bishop was a variable formula, sometimes of considerable length. St. Germanus gives a form which was said by priests "Pax, fides et caritas et communicatio corporis et sanguinis Domini sit semper vobiscum." There is a very similar form in the Stowe Missal and in the Ambrosian, but in both these it is connected with the Pax which comes at this point, as in the Roman Rite. In the Mozarabic, the deacon proclaims "Humilitate vos benedictioni". This is alluded to by St. Caesarius of Arles and is very like tas kephalas hemon to kyrio klinomen in the Byzantine Rite. Then follows a long variable Benediction of four clauses, pronounced by the priest, the people responding "Amen" to each clause. The Gallican Benedictions were of the same type. The practice of a Benediction before Communion continued in France long after the extinction of the Gallican Rite and survives to this day at Lyons. It was also the practice of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Dom Cabrol ("Benediction Episcopale" in "Report of the 19th Eucharistic Congress") considers that the Anglo-Saxon Benedictions were not survivals of Gallican (Celtic) usage, but were derived from the ancient practice of Rome itself, and that the rite was a general one of which traces are found nearly everywhere.

(21) The Communion.-- St. Germanus gives no details of this, but mentions the singing of the Trecanum. His description of this was not very clear. "Sic enim prima in secunda, secunda in tertia, et rursum tertia in secunda rotatur in prima." But he takes the threefold chant as an emblem of the Trinity. The Mozarabic on most days has a fixed anthem, Ps. xxxiii, 8 (9) (Gustate, et videte) 1 (2) (Benedicam Dominum) and 22 (23) (Redimet Dominus), and the Gloria with three Alleluias after each verse. This is called Ad Accedentes. In Lent and Easter-tide there are variants. The rather obvious Gustate et videte is given also in the Stowe Missal and Bangor Antiphoner, and is mentioned by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It occurs in certain Eastern Liturgies. In the Mozarabic it is followed by the Communio "Refecti Christi corpore et sangunie, te laudamus, Domine, Alleluia" (thrice), with a variant in Lent. This is found also in the Celtic books. Probably it was used by the Gallican also. In the Mozarabic the priest's Communion, with his private devotions, goes on during these anthems. St. Caesarius of Arles and the Council of Auxerre (about 578), quoted by Duchesne, allude to the fact that men received the Host in the bare hand, but that women covered the hand with a linen cloth called dominicalis, which each brought with her.

(22) The Post-Communion.-- This, as given in the Gallican books, is a variable Praefatio, or Bidding Prayer, followed by a collect. The former is entitled Post Communionem, the latter Collectio. The Mozarabic has only a collect which is variable, but with a smaller selection than the other prayers.

(23) The Dismissal formula of the Gallican Mass is not extant. It may have been like the Stowe "Missa acta est in pace", or one form of Mozarabic "Missa acta est in nomine D.B.J.C., proficiamus cum pace."

It will be seen from the above analysis that the Gallican Mass contained a very small number of fixed elements, so that nearly the whole service was variable according to the day. The absence of an Ordinary is, therefore, of less importance than it would be in, for instance, the Roman or the Ambrosian. The full list of variables, as shown from the Reichenau fragments, the Gothicum, and St. Germanus's description, is:--

(1) The Introit. (2) (Collectio) post Prophetiam. (3) Lectio Prophetica. (4) Lectio Apostolica. (5) Responsorium before the Gospel. (6) Gospel. (7) Post Precem. (8) Sonum. (9) Laudes. (10) Praefatio Missae. (11) Collectio. (12) Ante Nomina. (13) Post Nomina. (14) Ad Pacem. (15) Contestatio or Immolatio. (16) Post Sanctus. (17) Post Pridie. (18) Confractorium? (19) Ante Orationem Dominicam. (20) Post Orationem Dominicam. (22) Trecanum? (23) Communio? (24) Post Communionem. (25) Collectio or Consummatio Missae. Of these nos. 2. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 belong to the priest's part, and are therefore found in the Sacramentaries; 1, 5, 8, 9, as well as 18, 22, and 23, if these last were variable, belong to the part of the choir, and would be found in the Antiphoners, if any such existed; and 3, 4, 6, are found in the Lectionary. No. 12 is only found among the Reichenau fragments, but it is found there in every Mass of which the MS. is not imperfect at that part of the service. Thus the fixed parts of the service would only be: (a) The three Canticles. (b) The Ajus and Sanctus, etc., at the Gospel. (c) The Prex. (d) The Dismissal. (e) The priest's prayers at the Offertory. (f) The Great Intercession. (g) The Pax formula. (h) The Sursum Corda dialogue. (i) The Sanctus. (j) The Recital of the Institution. (k) The Pater Noster, and possibly the Confractorium, Trecanum and Communio, with probably the priest's devotions at Communion. Most of these are very short and the only really important passage wanting is the one fixed passage in the Prayer of Consecration, the Recital of the Institution.

VI. THE OCCASIONAL SERVICES

A. The Baptismal Service.-- The authorities for the Gallican Baptismal Service are the Gothicum and Gallicanum, both of which are incomplete, and a few details in the second Letter of St. Germanus of Paris. The forms given in the Stowe and the Bobbio are to much Romanized to illustrate the Gallican Rite very much. The form given in the Gothicum is the least complete. It consists of:--

(1) "Ad Christianum faciendum." A Bidding Prayer and collect, with the form of signing on eyes, ears, and nostrils.

(2) The Blessing of the Font. A Bidding Prayer, a collect, a Contestio (Preface), the infusion of chrism in the form of a cross with a triple insufflation, and an exorcism, which here is in an unusual place.

(3) The Baptismal formula "Baptizo te in nomine ... in remissionem peccatorum, ut habeas vitam aeternam".

(4) The Chrismation. The formula "Perungo te chrisma sanctitatis" seems to have been mixed up with a form for the bestowal of the white garment, for it goes on "tunicam immortalitatis, quam D.N.J.C. traditam a Patre primus accepit ut eam integram et inlibatam preferas ante tribunal Christi et vivas insaecula saeculorum ". Probably the ommission is "... in Nomine", etc., in the one formula; and "Accipe vestem candidam", or possibly "Accipe" alone, in the other. Mgr. Duchesne's suggestion of "a special symbolism, according to which the chrism would be considered as a garment" does not commend itself, for want of a verb to govern "tunicam". Still there is another formula for the white garment farther on.

(5) The Feet Washing. The form here is similar to that in the Gallicanum, the Bobbio, and the Stowe: "Ego te lavo pedes. Sicut D.N.J.C. fecit discipulis suis, tu facias hospitibus et peregrenis ut habeas vitam aeternam". This ceremony is only found in Gaul, Spain, and Ireland. At the Council of Elvira in 305 an order was made that it should be performed by clerks and not by priests. This limitation, of which the wording is quite clear, has been unaccountably interpreted to mean that it was then forbidden altogether.

(6) The Vesting with the white garment. This has a form similar to the Roman and Celtic, but not quite the same.

(7) Two final Bidding Prayers with no collect.

The Gallicanum has a much fuller form with the Traditio and Expositio Symboli, etc. It is:--

(1) "Ad faciendum Catechumenum." A long and curious exorcism beginning "Adgredior te, immundissime, damnate spiritus". This is only a fragment, and probably the unction and salt came here, as in the Spanish Rite.

(2) "Expositio vel Traditio Symboli." An address, the Creed, a long exposition of it, and a collect. The Creed varies verbally from the Roman form. There is a second "Expositio" later on.

(3) "Expositio Evangeliorum in aurium apertione ad electos." An address followed by a few words of each of the Gospels and an exposition of the emblems of the Evangelists. This is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary.

(4) "Praemissiones ad Scrutamen." A Bidding Prayer and a collect.

(5) "Praefatio Orationis Dominicae". The tradition and exposition of the Lord's Prayer.

(6) "Missa in symboli traditione." This is imperfect but agrees nearly, as far as they both go, with a Mass of the same title in the Gothicum.

(7) "Expositio Symboli." This, though as on the same lines as the earlier one, differs in wording. It is very incomplete and has probably got into this place by mistake.

(8) "Opus ad Baptizando (sic)." This is preceded by various services for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Eve, including the Blessing of the Candle. It begins with a "Praefatio antequam exorcidietur" and a collect. Then follow the exorcism and the blessing of thee font, and the infusion of the chrism, this time in the form of three crosses.

(9) The Interrogation. This includes the renunciation of Satan and a confession of faith. The latter has a peculiar form, evidently directed against Arianism:--

"Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unius esse virtutis? R. Credo.
Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum ejusdem esse potestatis? R. Credo.
Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum trinae veritatis una manente substantia Deum esse perfectum? R. Credo.

(10) The Baptismal formula: "Baptizo te credentem in Nomine, etc., ut habeas vitam in saecula saeculorum."

(11) The Chrismation. The formula is the same as the modern Roman.

(12) The Feet-washing. The words are slightly different from those in the Gothicum, Bobbio, and Stowe, but to the same effect.

(13) The "Post Baptismum". A single prayer (without a Bidding Prayer) beginning "Deus ad quem scubias veteris hominis in fonte depositas". It will be seen that there is no giving of the white robe in the Gallicum, and that the signing of the hand, found in the Celtic Rite (q.v.), is absent from both it and the Gothicum.

The Holy Week ceremonies which are mixed with the Baptismal service in the two books are not very characteristic. The couplets of invitatory and collect which occur in the Roman Good Friday service are given with verbal variations in the Gothicum; in both, however, there are other prayers of a similar type and prayers for some of the Hours of Good Friday and Easter Eve. The Blessing of the Paschal Candle consists of a Bidding Prayer and collect (in the Gothicum only), the "Exulter" and its Preface nearly exactly as in the Roman, a "Collectio post benedictionem cerei", and "Collectio post hymnum cerei." There is no ceremony of the New Fire in either.

B. The Ordination services of the Gallican Rite do not occur in any of the avowedly Gallican books, but they are found in the Gelasian Sacramentary and thee Missale Francorum, that is to say, a mixed form which does not agree with the more or less contemporary Roman form in the Leonine and Gregorian Sacramentaries, though it contains some Roman prayers, is found in these two books, and it may be reasonably be inferred that the differences are of Gallican origin. Moreover, extracts relating to ceremonial are given with them from the Statuta Ecclesia Antiqua, formerly attributed the Fourth Council of Carthage, but now known to be a Gallican decree "promulgated in the province of Arles towards the end of the fifth century" (Duschene). The ceremonial therein contained agrees with that described in "De Officiis Ecclesiasticis" by St. Isidore of Seville. The forms of minor orders, including subdeacon, were very short, and consisted simply of the delivery of the instruments: keys to the porters, books of lectors, and exorcists, cruets to acolytes, chalice, paten, basin, ewer and towel to subdeacons, occur, Bidding Prayers and all, in the Roman Pontifical of today. In the ordination of deacons there is a form which is found in the Byzantine Rite, but has not been adopted in the Roman, the recognition by the people, after an address, with the cry of "Dignus est!". This is used for priests and bishops also (cf. Axios, in the Byzantine ordinations). The Bidding Prayer and collect which follow are both in the present Roman Pontifical, though separated by much additional matter. The ordination of priests was of the same type as that of deacons, with the addition of the anointing of the hands. The address, with a varied end, and the collect (but not the Bidding Prayer), and the anointing of the hands with its formula are in the modern Roman Pontifical, but with very large additions. The consecration of bishops began, after an election, with a presentation and recognition, neither of which is in the modern Pontifical. Then followed a long Bidding Prayer, also not adopted in the Roman Rite, and the Consecration Prayer Deus omnium honorum, part of which is embodied in the Preface in the Leonine and Gregorian Sacramentaries, and in the present Pontifical. During this prayer two bishops held the Book of the Gospels over the candidate, and all the bishops laid their hands on his head. Then followed the anointing of the hands, but apparently not of the head as in the modern rite, with a formula which is not in the Roman books.

C. The Consecration of a Church does not occur in the recognized Gallican books and from prayers in the Gelasian Sacramentary and Missale Francorum. It would seem, as Mgr. Duschene shows in his excellent analysis of both rites (Origines du culte chrÈtien), that at a time when the Roman Rite of Consecration was exclusively funerary and contained little else but the deposition of the relics, as shown in the Ordines in the St. Amand MS. (Bibl. Nat. Lat. 974), the Gallican Rite resembled more closely that of the modern Pontifical, which may be presumed to have borrowed from it. The commentary of Remigius of Auxerre (late ninth century), published by MartÈne, and the Sacramentary of Angoulême (Bibl. Nat. Lat. 12048) are the other authorities from which Duchesne derives his details. The order of the Celtic Consecration given in the Leabhar Breac is very similar (see CELTIC RITE). The order is:

(1) The Entrance of the bishop, with "Tollite portas, principes, vestras", etc., which exhibits the outline of the present rite. (2) The Alphabets, as at present. (3) The Exorcism, Blessing and mixing of water, salt, ashes, and wine. (4) The Lustration of the Altar and the inside of thee Church. (5) The Consecration Prayers. These are the prayers "Deus, qui loca nomini tuo", and "Deus sanctificationum, omnipotens dominator", which occur at the same point at present. The latter prayer in the Gallican Rite is worked into a Preface (in the Roman sense of the word). (6) The Anointing of the Altar with chrism, with the five crosses as at present. the Celtic Rite had seven. (7) The anointing of the Church with chrism. Nothing is said about crosses on the walls. (8) The Consecration of the Altar with the burning of a cross of incense thereon, and a Bidding Prayer and collect. (9) The Blessing of linen, vessels, etc. (10) The Translation of the Relics which have been kept in a separate place and a night watch kept over them. This service, which is clearly the modern elaborate consecration in germ, has also many points in common with the Akolouthia eis Egkainia Naou in the Byzantine Euchologion, which is still simpler. The three are evidently three stages of the same service.

HENRY JENNER

Sts. Gallicanus

The following saints of this name are commemorated on 25 June:

(1) St. Gallicanus

Roman Martyr in Egypt, 363-363, under Julian. According to his Acts (in "Acta SS.", June, VII, 31), which are not very reliable, he was a distinguished general in the war against the Persians, was consul with Symmachus,333 (perhaps also once before with Bassus, 317). After his conversion to Christianity he retired to Ostia, founded a hospital and endowed a church built by Constantine. Under Julian he was banished to Egypt, and lived with the hermits in the desert. A small church was built in his honour in the Trastevere of Rome. His relics are at Rome in the church of Sant' Andrea della Valle. The legend of his conversion was dramatized by Roswitha.

(2) St. Gallicanus I

Seventh bishop of Embrun, was represented at the Fourth Council of Arles in 524, assisted in person at that of Carpentras in 527; perhaps also at the Second Council of Orange in 529, and at the Third Council of Vaison in the same year.

(3) St. Gallicanus II

Ninth bishop of Embrun, assisted at the Fourth Council of Orléans, 541 and was represented by Probus at the fifth of Orléans. He is said to have consecrated the church of the Spanish martyrs Vincent, Orontius, and Victor, built at Embrun by Palladius. It is probable, however, that Palladius never existed (he is not known except from some hagiographical documents of little value), and that Gallicanus governed the diocese from 518 to 549 and perhaps until 554.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus

Roman emperor; b. about 218; d. at Milan, 4 March, 268; appointed regent by his father Valerian when the Germans threatened the boundaries of the empire on the Rhine and the Danube. Gallienus took the western half of the empire and his father the eastern portion, in 255. Gallienus was by nature indolent and fond of pleasure. He was cruel to the vanquished, and was unable to repel the attacks of the Frankish invaders of Gaul, but bribed their chieftains to undertake the wardenship of the Rhenish borderline. When the Alemanni burst through the limes Rhaticus, or Rhætian barrier, and invaded Upper Italy, the senate armed the Roman burgesses for the first time in thirty years and raised a force of troops on its own responsibility. Gallienus defeated the enemy at Milan, but made an alliance with one of the chiefs of the Marcomanni, and gave him Upper Pannonia. He forbade the senators to enter the military service, to have anything to do with the army, and excluded them from the administration of the provinces. In consequence of this decree, the former distinction between imperial and senatorial provinces disappeared. During the wars against the Germans many distinguished Roman officers were proclaimed emperors in the various provinces. The most successful of these was Aurelian, who later became sole emperor. In consequence of the withdrawal of the troops from the eastern boundaries, the countries near the Bosphorus and the Black Sea were laid open to pillage at the hands of the Goths. Simultaneously the Persians under Sapor I swooped down on Asia Minor. Valerian led an army against them, but was betrayed and captured. His servitude lasted until his death in 260.

Gallienus thereupon became sole ruler. A bloody persecution of the Christians broke out in 257- 258, instigated by imperial edicts; they were accused of failure to take up arms in defence of the empire from its invaders. Whoever refused to take part in the Roman pagan rites was first exiled, then slain. One of the first victims was St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who was executed 14 September, 258; at Rome Sixtus II and his deacon St. Lawrence suffered martyrdom. After the death of his father, Gallienus granted liberty of worship to the Christians. He recognized as his deputy in the East Odenanthus, ruler of the commercial city of Palmyra and energetic conqueror of Sapor I, King of Persia. Afterwards he made him emperor. In the course of the wars against the enemies of the empire, the soldiers at various times proclaimed eighteen of their generals provincial emperors. These men were also called "The Thirty Tyrants". Among them were Postumus in Gaul, and Ingenuus in Pannonia, over whom Gallienus won a partial victory, with the help of Aureolus, the commander-in-chief of the imperial armies. When the troops in Italy acclaimed Aureolus "imperator", he tried to make himself master of Italy and Rome, but was defeated by Gallienus on the Adda and shut up in Milan. Gallienus was assassinated by his officers while this siege was going on.

      Clinton, Fasti Romani (Oxford), II; Schiller, Röm. Kaisergeschichte; Seeck, Untergang der Antiken Welt, II; Linsenmayr, Bekämpfung des Christenthums durch den römischen Staat (1905), 158 sqq.; Allard, Hist des Persécutions; Healy, The Valerian Persecution (New York, s. d.).

Karl Hoeber

Joseph de Gallifet

Priest; b. near Aix, France, 2 May 1663; d. at Lyons, 1 September, 1749. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fifteen, and upon taking up his studies came under the direction of Father de la Colombière, the confessor of Blessed Margaret Mary Alocoque. It is not surprising that from such a director he should acquire that love of the Sacred Heart which he cultivated with so much fervour as to merit the title of the Apostle of the devotion to the Sacred Heart. While on a mission of charity during his third year of probation at Lyons, he caught a fever which brought him to death's door. So distressed were his brethren at the fear of losing him that a certain father made a vow in his name that if he were spared, Father de Gallifet would spend his life in the cause of the Sacred Heart. From that time on he began to recover. He ratified the vow, and never slackened in his efforts to fulfill it. His superiors realizing his fitness for government advanced him to three successive rectorships -- at Vesoul, at Lyons, and at Grenoble. The last-named appointment was followed by the provincialship of the Province of Lyons. In 1723 he was chosen assistant for France, an office which brought him to Rome. Here he found it in his power to work more effectively for the spread of the devotion that was dearest to his heart. Returning from Rome in 1732, he again became rector at Lyons where he passed his declining years, a model of meekness, humility, and charity. He wrote an admirable book on the Blessed Virgin, and one on the chief virtues of the Christian religion; his greatest work, "De Cultu Sacrosancti Cordis Dei ac Domini Nostri Jesu Christi", appeared in 1726. The main purpose of the book met with much opposition at first, and its well-supported plea for the establishment of a feast for the Sacred Heart was not crowned with victory until 1765. The zealous apostle had in the mean time gone to his reward. though he had lived to see the establishment of over 700 confraternities of the Sacred Heart.

De Gallifet, The Adorable Heart of Jesus (New York, 1899); Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., 111, 1124-31; de Guilhermy, Ménologie de la C. de J. Assistance de France; Nix, Cultus SS. Cordis Jesu (Freiburg, 1891).

JOSEPH H. SMITH

Gallipoli

DIOCESE OF GALLIPOLI (GALLIPOLITANA).

Diocese in the province of Lecce (Southern Italy). The city is built on a high rock in the Gulf of Tarentum and joined to the mainland by a bridge of twelve arches. It is surrounded by a bastioned wall and dominated by a castle; has also an important trade in wine, oil and fish. Drinking-water is brought to the town from the mainland by means of an aqueduct. The harbour is a natural one, and not particularly safe. It is thought that the place owes its origin to the inhabitants of Gallipolis in Sicily. In 450, it was laid waste by the Vandals; in the days of St. Gregory the Great (590-604) Gallipolis belonged to the Roman Church. During the Norman invasion it resisted stubbornly. Roger I gave it to his brother Bohemund, who had been made Prince of Tarentum; thenceforth the city shared the lot of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Charles of Anjou besieged it in 1284 and destroyed it, driving the inhabitants from their homes; in 1327 Robert the Good gave them permission to return, within a short time the town again became prosperous. In 1429, the Turks disembarked there. In 1484, the Venetians, in order to force King Ferdinand to withdraw his troops from the pontifical states, blockaded the port with a fleet of 60 vessels. Despite the death of their leader, Giacomo Morello, they overcame the stubborn resistance of the citizens, and sacked the town ruthlessly. It was quickly restored; but in 1496, the Venetians, in revenge for the assistance given to Ferdinand II by the town, took possession of Gallipoli; even the French blockade in 1501 did not succeed in driving them out. In 1509 Gallipoli was given back to the Kingdom of Naples, at that time under Spanish rule. A very remarkable feat of arms occurred in 1528 when 600 Gallipolitans routed an army of 4000 French infantry and 300 cavalry. The last blockade occurred in 1809 when the English attacked the place and were repulsed.

Among its famous citizens are: the painters (Giovanni Andrea Coppola, Giovanni Domenica Catalano, Giuseppe Ribera (Spagnuoletto); the sculptor Vespasiano Genuino; the poets Giovanni Coppola, Bishop of Muro, and Onofrio Orlandini; the jurisconsults Tommaso Briganti (1762) and Filippo Briganti (1804); the physician and naturalist Giovanni Presta (1797). The earliest bishop we know of is one Benedict who lived in the days of St. Gregory the Great. The Greek Rite, which was introduced probably in the tenth century, remained in use until the year 1513. Among other bishops are: Melchisedech, present at the Second Council of Nicaea (787); Alessio Calcedonio (1493), one of Bessarion's disciples; Alfonso Herrera (1576), a generous and charitable man; Vincenzo Capece (1595), a man of remarkable holiness; Antonio Perez de la Lastra (1679), philosopher and theologian; Oronzio Filomarino (1701), a renowned theologian. The cathedral, built in 1629, has a famous facade; it is the work of Francesco Bischetini, and Scipione Lachibari. The frescoes of the cupola (martyrdom of St. Agatha) and on the walls are the work of Carlo Malinconico. The see is a suffragan of Otranto; it has 3 parishes and 20,100 souls, a convent of Carmelite nuns, and a foundling hospital.

U. BENIGNI

Adele Amalie Gallitzin

(Or GOLYZIN).

Princess; b. at Berlin, 28 Aug., 1748; d. at Angelmodde, near Münster, Westphalia, 17 April, 1806. She was the daughter of the Prussian General Count von Schmettau, and educated in the Catholic faith, though she soon became estranged from her religion. In 1768, she married the Russian Prince Dimitry Alexejewitsch Gallitzin, who was under Catherine II ambassador at Paris, Turin and The Hague. In each of these capitals, the princess, thanks to her beauty and her eminent qualities of mind and heart, played a brilliant role. At the age of twenty-four she forsook society suddenly and devoted herself to the education of her children. She applied herself assiduously to the study of mathematics, classical philology, and philosophy under the noted philosopher Franz Hemsterhuis, who kindled her enthusiasm for Socratic-Platonic idealism, and later under the name of "Diokles" dedicated to her the "Diotima", his famous "Lettres sur l'atheisme". The educational reform introduced by Franz v. Furstenberg, Vicar-General of Münster, induced her to take up her residence in the Westphalian capital. Here she soon became the centre of a set of intellectual men led by Furstenberg. This circle also included the gymnasial teachers, (whom she incited to the deeper study of Plato), Overberg, the reformer of popular school education, Clemens Augustus von Droste-Vischering, Count Leopold von Stolberg, the profound philosopher Hamann, who was interred in her garden. The poet Claudius of the "Wandsbecker Bote" was also a familiar visitor, and Goethe numbered the hours passed by him in this circle among his most pleasant recollections. The reading of Sacred Scripture, necessitated by the religious education of her children, and her constant intercourse with noble Catholic souls, led to her return to positive religious convictions. On 28 Aug., 1786, at the instance of Overberg, she approached the tribunal of penance for the first time in many years. Soon after she made this zealous priest her chaplain. Under his influence, she underwent a complete change which affected all her surroundings. Her religious life took on a larger growth, and produced the most admirable fruit. She became the centre of Catholic activity in Münster. In those revolutionary and godless times, she provided for the spread of religious writings, proved a support for the religious faith of many of her friends, and induced others, among them Count Stolberg, to make their peace with the Church. Her gentle charity assuaged the distress of many, and she readily and generously assisted poor and destitute priests. For extensive circles hers was a model of religious life, and her social activity was for many a providential blessing. Portions of her correspondence and diaries were published by Scheuter (Münster, 1874-76) in three parts. This admirable lady was the mother of the well-known American missionary Prince Demetrius Gallitzin.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin

Prince, priest, and missionary, born at The Hague, Holland, 22 December, 1770; died at Loretto, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 6 May, 1840. He was a scion of one of the oldest, wealthiest, and most illustrious families of Russia. His father, Prince Demetrius Gallitzin (d. 16 March, 1803), Russian ambassador to Holland at the time of his son's birth, had been previously for fourteen years Russian ambassador to France, and was an intimate acquaintance of Diderot, Voltaire, d'Alembert, and other rationalists of the day. Though nominally an Orthodox Russian, he accepted and openly professed the principles of an infidel philosophy. On 28 August, 1768, he married in Aachen the Countess Amalie, only daughter of the then celebrated Prussian Field-Marshal von Schmettau. Her mother, Baroness von Ruffert, being a Catholic, Amalie was baptized in the Catholic Church, but her religious education was neglected, and it was not until 1786 that she became a fervent Catholic, which she remained until her death, 27 April, 1806.

Little attention was paid to the religious education of Demetrius, who was born and baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church. In youth his most constant companion was Frederick William, son of William V, then reigning Stadtholder of the Netherlands. This friendship continued even after Frederick William became King of the Netherlands and Duke of Luxemburg as William I. Almost from his infancy the young prince was subjected to rigid discipline, and his intellectual faculties, trained by the best masters of the age, reached their fullest development. When about seventeen he became a sincere Catholic, and to please his mother, whose birth (1748), marriage (1768), and First Holy Communion (1786) occurred on 28 August, the feast of St. Augustine, assumed at confirmation that name, and thereafter wrote his name Demetrius Augustine. After finishing his education he was appointed aide-de-camp to the Austrian General von Lillien, but as there was no opportunity for him to continue a military career his parents resolved that he should spend two years in traveling through America, the West Indies, and other foreign lands. Provided with letters of introduction to Bishop Carroll of Baltimore, and accompanied by his tutor, Father Brosius, afterwards a prominent missionary in the United States, he embarked at Rotterdam, Holland, 18 August, 1792, and landed in Baltimore, 28 October. To avoid the inconvenience and expense of travelling as a Russian prince, he assumed the name of Schmet, or Smith, and for many years was known in the United States as Augustine Smith. Soon after arriving at Baltimore, he was deeply impressed with the needs of the Church in America. He resolved to devote his fortune and life to the salvation of souls in the country of his adoption. Despite the objections of his relatives and friends in Europe, he, with the approval of Bishop Carroll, entered St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, as one of its first students, it having been founded the previous year (1791) by Sulpician priests, refugees from France. On 18 March, 1795, he was ordained priest, being the first to receive in the limits of the original thirteen of the United States all the orders from tonsure to priesthood.

In 1788 Captain Michael McGuire, an officer in the Revolutionary army, purchased about 1200 acres of land near the summit of the Alleghenies, in what is now Cambria County, Pennsylvania, and was the first white man to establish a residence within the limits of that county. He brought his family from Maryland and built his log-cabin in the valley below the site of the present town of Loretto, in the midst of a dense forest which covered all that portion ofthe State. His nearest neighbours were fully twenty miles distant. Soon relatives and friends followed from Maryland, established themselves in the vicinity, and formed what came to be known far and wide as McGuire's Settlement, later called Clearfield, the lands lying on the headwaters of Clearfield Creek. Some years after his arrival Father Gallitzin named it Loretto, after the city of Loreto in Italy; but it was not until 1816 that he laid out the town and caused the plan of lots to be recorded in the county archives. Captain McGuire died in 1;793, bequeathing to Bishop Carroll four hundred acres of his land in trust for the benefit of the resident clergy who, he hoped, would be appointed to provide for the spiritual wants of his growing colony. He was the first to be buried in the portion of this land set aside for a cemetery, which Father Brosius consecrated on one of his early visits to the settlement.

Father Gallitzin first exercised his ministry at Baltimore and in the scattered missions of southern Pennsylvania and northern Maryland and Virginia. In 1796, while stationed at Conewago, Pennsylvania, he received a sick-call to attend a Mrs. John Burgoon, a Protestant, who lived at McGuire's Settlement, about one hundred and fifty miles distant, and who ardently desired to become a Catholic before her death. Father Gallitzin immediately started on the long journey, instructed Mrs. Burgoon, and received her into the Church. During this visit to the Alleghenies he conceived the idea of forming there a Catholic settlement. In preparation therefor, he invested his means (considerable at that time) in the purchase of land adjoining the four hundred acres donated to the Church, and at the urgent request of the little mountain colony obtained from Bishop Carroll permission to fix his permanent residence there with jurisdiction extending over a territory with a radius of over one hundred miles. In the summer of 1799 he commenced his career as pioneer priest of the Alleghenies. His first care was to erect a church and house of logs, hewn from the immense pine trees of the surrounding forest. In a letter to Bishop Carroll, dated 9 February, 1800, he writes: "Our church, which was only begun in harvest, got finished fit for service the night before Christmas. It is about 44 feet long by 25, built of white pine logs with a very good shingle roof. I kept service in it at Christmas for the first time. There is also a house built for me, 16 feet by 14, besides a little kitchen and a stable." While the church and house were being constructed, he said Mass for the few Catholics of the settlement in the log house, erected two years previously by Luke McGuire, the elder son of the captain. That house is still standing (1909) and serves as a residence for the descendants, in direct male line, of the founder of McGuire's Settlement. To accommodate the increasing influx of Catholic colonists, Father Gallitzin in 1808 enlarged the log church to almost double its former capacity, and as the population continued to increase, he took down the log building in 1817, and on the same site erected a frame church, forty by thirty feet, which served as the parish church until 1853.

Father Heyden, one of Father Gallitzin's biographers, writes (1869): "What now constitutes the dioceses of Pittsburg, Erie, and a large part of the Harrisburg new episcopal see, was then the missionary field of a single priest, Rev. Prince Gallitzin. If we except the station at Youngstown, Westmoreland County, where the Rev. Mr. Browers had settled a few years before, there was not, from Conewago in Adams County to Lake Erie–from the Susquehanna to the Potomac–a solitary priest, church, or religious establishment of any kind, when he opened his missionary career. >From this statement we may conceive some idea of the incredible privations and toils which he had to encounter in visiting the various widely remote points where some few Catholics happened to reside." As early as 1800, and frequently thereafter, he wrote to Bishop Carroll, begging that one or more priests be sent to share his burdens. And so for more than twenty years he was obliged to perform, unassisted, a work which would have proved onerous for several.

He was not only the good shepherd of his multiplying flock; he was also in a particular manner their worldly benefactor. Follwoing out his idea of establishing a Catholic colony at the place which he named Loretto, and which he made the cradle of Catholicity in Western Pennsylvania, he, by means of remittances from Germany and loans contracted on the strength of his expectations, purchased large portions of land adjoining the settlement, which he sold in small tracts to the incoming colonists at a very low rate and on easy terms. For much of this land he was never repaid. Moreover, he built, at his own expense, saw-mills, grist-mills, and tanneries, and established other industries for the material benefit of his flock. In accomplishing all this he necessarily burdened himself with a heavy personal debt; not imprudently, however, for he had received solemn assurances that he would obtain a portion of his father's large estate, as well as his shar4e of his mother's bequest. The Russian Government, nevertheless, disinherited him for becoming a Catholic and a priest, and the German prince who had married his sister squandered both his and her inheritance. In these circumstances, he was compelled, in 1827, to appeal to the charitable public; the appeal was endorsed by Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who headed the list with a subscription of one hundred dollars; on the list stands the name of Cardinal Cappellari, afterwards Pope Gregory XVI, who subscribed two hundred dollars. Yet it was not until near the close of his life that the burden of debt was finally lifted. During the forty-one years of his pastorate in the Alleghenies, he never received a cent of salary; he maintained himself, his household, and the many orphans whom he sheltered, and abundantly supplied the wants of the needy among his flock out of the produce of his farm, which by his intelligent method of cultivation became very productive. It is estimated that he expended $150,000 of his inheritance, a small portion of the amount that should rightly have come to him, but an immense sum for the times in which he lived, in the establishment of his Catholic colony on the Alleghenies. For some years (1804-1807) he was rewarded with ingratitude. His actions were misconstrued, his words and writings misinterpreted, his character vilified, his honour attacked, and even violent hands were laid on his person, and all this by members of his own flock. But, with the encouragement of his bishop and the aid of kthe civil courts, he brought his defamers to acknowledge their guilt, for which they voluntarily and publicly made full reparation before their fellow Catholics in the Loretto church.

For fourteen years after his ordination Father Gallitzin was known to the general public as Augustine Smith. This was the name which he subscribed to all his legal papers and to his entries in the parish register of baptisms and marriages. But, fearing serious difficulties in the future, at his request, on 16 Dec., 1809, the Pennsylvania legislature validated the acts and purchases made under that assumed name, and legalized the resumption of his real name. Notwithstanding his varied labours, Father Gallitzin found time to publish several valuable tracts in favour of the Catholic cause. He was the first in the United States to enter the lists of controversy in defence of the Church;;he was provoked thereto by a sermon delivered on Thanksgiving Day, 1814, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, by a certain minister who went out of his way to attack what he called "popery". Repelling this attack, Father Gallitzin first published his "Defense of Catholic Principles", which ran through several editions and was the means of many conversions. This was followed by "A Letter on the Holy Scriptures" and "An Appeal to the Protestant Public".

For twenty years Father Gallitzin had laboured alone in a vast mission whose Catholic population was constantly increasing; in 1834, when Father Lemke was sent to his assistance and was assigned the northern part of Cambria County as his sphere of action, the parish of Loretto was restricted within comparatively narrow limits. In the meantime Father Gallitzin's reputation for sanctity, the fame of his talents, and the account of his labours had spread far and wide; and it was his deep humility as well as his love for his community that prevented his advancement to the honours of the Church. He accepted the office of Vicar-General for Western Pennsylvania, conferred on him by Bishop Conwell of Philadelphia, in 1827, because he felt that in that office he could promote the interests of the Church; but he strongly resisted the proposals to nominate him for the position of first Bishop of Cincinnati and first Bishop of Detroit. For many years before his death he lived in the hope of seeing Loretto made an episcopal see, for Loretto was then a flourishing mission and the centre of a constantly increasing Catholic population, while Pittsburg was a small town containing but few Catholics. After forty-one years spent on the rugged heights of the Alleghenies, he died as he had lived, poor. On coming to McGuire's Settlement he found a dense wilderness; he left it dotted with fertile farms. As an evidence of his religious labours in Pennsylvania, it may be stated that within a raqdius of fifteen miles from the spot on which in 1799 he built his log church there are now no less than twenty-one flourishing parishes, thirty-three priests, and four religious and educational institutions. He was buried, according to his desire, midway between his residence and the church (they were about thirty feet apart); in 1847 his remains were transferrred to a vault in a field nearer the town, over which a;humble monument was erected out of squared blocks of rough mountain stone. In 1891 his remains were taken from the decayed coffin of cherry wood and placed in a metallic casket; in 1899, on the occasion of the centenary celebration of the foundation of the Loretto Mission, the rude monument was capped by a pedestal of granite, and this in turn by a bronze statue of the prince-priest, donated by Charles M. Schwab, who also built the large stone church, which was solemnly consecrated, 2 Oct., 1901.

Lemke, Leben und Wirken (Münster, 1861); Heyden, Life and Character of Rev. Prince Demetrius A. de Gallitzin (Baltimore, 1869); Brownson, Life of D. A. Gallitzin, Prince and Priest (New York, 1872); Kittell, Souvenir of Loretto Centenary (Cresson, Pa., 1899); Kart in Catholic World (New York, 1895), LXI; Middleton in Am. Cath. Hist. Mag. (Philadelphia, 1893), IV; Pise in U. S. Cath. Hist. Mag. (New York, 1890), III; Heuser in American Catholic Historical Magazine (Philadelphia, 1895), VI.

Ferdinand Kittell

Diocese of Galloway

(Gallovidiana).

Situated in the southwest of Scotland. It comprises the Counties of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Wigtown and about four-fifths of the County of Ayr, thus embracing a territory of 3347 square miles and a general population of 373,670, of which Catholics form only a small fraction. From an historical point of view, a singular interest attaches to this diocese since it is certainly the most ancient ecclesiastical foundation in Scotland, its founder and first bishop, St. Ninian, being "the first authentic personages that meets us in the succession of Scottish missionaries" (Belleshiem). This illustrious saint, a Briton, born on the Solway shore, educated at Rome and consecrated bishop by St. Siricius, founded his episcopal see at Whithorn and dedicated his cathedral to St. Martin of Tours, in 397; and, having evangelized the country as far north as the Grampian mountains, died about 432. The dates here given are on the authority of the majority of Scottish writers.

The original title of the see was "Whitherne" (Quhitherne), latinized "Witerha" and (more frequently) "Candida Casa", signifying the White House so called, St. Bede tells us, from the structure and appearance of the church erected by St. Ninian "in a style unusual among the Britons". At what precise date the territorial title of "Galloway" came into use is not quite clear. It is obviously improbable that the area of the diocese was at all defined in St. Ninian's time, but from the eighth till the end of the sixteenth century it was limited to the district of Galloway, i.e., the two Counties of Kirkeudbright and Wigtown. The succession of bishops in this see was three times interrupted in the course of its history for periods averaging three hundred years' duration each. The last Catholic bishop in the sixteenth century, Andrew Durie, died in 1558, and the see was vacant three hundred and twenty years.

It was restored, for the third time, by Leo XIII in 1878, and the Right Rev. John McLachlan, D.D., Vicar-General of the Western Vicariate of Scotland, was appointed the first bishop. From the extent of territory it would be perhaps more accurately described as a new diocese, for it was formed out of two outlying portions of the former eastern and western vicariates and has more than double the are it had at either previous restoration. The Catholic population, small in number and thinly dispersed over the whole territory, belonged chiefly to the poorer labouring class and, excepting the larger burghs, such as Ayr, Dumfries, and Kilmarnock, was very inadequately provided for in respect of ordinary religious and educational needs. But the new bishop was a man of great energy and zeal, with a wide missionary and administrative experience, and in a comparatively short time he not only thoroughly organized the diocese but also furnished it abundantly with churches, schools, presbyteries, and an efficient clergy. While engaged in this great work he received generous encouragement and support from many of the wealthier members of his flock, e.g., the third Marquess of Bute; Rev. Sir David Oswald Hunter-Blair, Baronet; Captain R. D. Barre Cunninghame, and others. Bishop McLachlan died 16 Jan., 1893, and was succeeded by the Right Rev. William Turner, the present bishop; b. at Aberdeen, 12 Dec., 1844; cons. 25 July, 1893. The diocesan statistics for 1908 show a Catholic population of 17,625 souls, 21 missions, 41 churches or chapels, 30 priests in active work, 28 elementary schools, 10 religious communities (all since 1875), and various educational and charitable institutions. The diocese was a suffragan of York (England) previous to 1472; from that date until 1492 it was subject to St. Andrews; and from then until the extinction of the ancient hierarchy it was transferred to Glasgow. It is now a suffragan of the new Archbishopric of St. Andrews and Edinburgh.

Bellesheim, Hist. of Cath. Church in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1890); Forbes, Lives of St. Ninian and St. Kentigern (Edinburgh, 1874); Keith, Catalogue of Scottish Bishops (Edinburgh, 1824); Walcott, Ancient Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1874); Skene, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1887); Maxwell, Dumfries and Galloway (Edinburgh, 1896); McKerlie, Lands and Owners in Galloway (Paisley, 1906); The Catholic Directory of Scotland for 1878 and 1908; The Catholic Church of Scotland, Statistics (Glasgow, 1878).

WILLIAM TURNER

Pasquale Galluppi

Philosopher, b. at Tropea, in Calabria, 2 April, 1770; d. at Naples, 13 Dec., 1846, where from 1831 he was a professor in the university. His principal works are "Saggio filosofico sulla critica della conoscenza umana", 4 vols; "Lettere sulle vicende della filosofia da Cartesio a Kant"; "Elementi di Filosofica"; "Lezioni di Logica e Metafisica"; "Filosofia della volontà"; "Considerazioni filosofiche sull' idealismo trascendentale". Of his "Storia della Filisofia" he completed only the first volume. His philosophy is a mixture of assent to and dissent from Descartes, the French and English sensists, Kant, and the Scottish school of Reid. Cartesianism tempered by the modifications introduced into it by Leibniz, Wolf, and Genovesi, was the system in which Galluppi's mind was trained. The problem of human knowledge was his chief preoccupation. He maintained the objective reality of our knowledge, which he based on the testimony of consciousness, making us aware not only of our internal experience, but also of the external causes to which it is due. This theory was aimed at Kant, though Galluppi agreed with him that space and time are a priori forms in the mind. Against the sensists, he denied that the mind was merely passive or receptive, and held that like a builder it arranged and ordered the materials supplied it, deducing therefrom new truths which sensation alone could never reach. He threw no light, however, on the difference between sensory and intellectual knowledge. This was the great weakness of his argument against the Scottish school, that the soul perceives not only its own affections or the qualities of bodies, but also its own substance and that of things outside itself. It was also natural that Galluppi should be foremost in attacking the theories of Rosemini concerning the idea of God as the first object of our knowledge: and it was this polemic (quiet enough in itself) which drew public attention to the Roveretan philosopher.

The morality of our actions, according to Galluppi, depends on the notion of duty which springs from the very nature of man. He never made use of the phrase "categoric imperative", but everything goes to show that on that point he did not completely escape Kant's influence: and although he asserted as the two great moral commandments "Be just" and "Be beneficent", he none the less approved of Kant's moral principle. Hence we do not find in him any hint as to the connection between the moral law and God, beyond the statement that God must reward virtue and punish vice. Against the Scottish school, on the other hand, he denied that morality depends on the feelings. His theodicy is well within the limits of that of Leibniz, and therefore admits not only the possibility of revelation, but also the divinity of Christianity. The care and clearness of his style made his works very popular; but when the Hegelianism of the Neapolitan school became the fashion in non-Catholic circles of thought, and Scholasticism regained its hold among Catholics, Galluppi's philosophy quickly lost ground. He always kept aloof from political questions; and his works were planned and written in his own home, amidst the noise and bustle of a large and happy family.

Werner, Kant in Italien, 1880 (Naples, 1897).

U. BENIGNI

Peter Gallwey

Born at Killarney, 13 Nov., 1820; d. in London, 23 Sept., 1906; one of the best-known London priests of his time. He was educated at Stonyhurst, joined the Society of Jesus at Hodder, 7 Sept., 1836, was ordained priest in 1852, and professed of four vows in 1854. As prefect of studies at Stonyhurst, 1855-1857, he made important improvements in the method of study. In 1857 he was sent to the Jesuit church in London, where -- except for an interval of eight years during which he held the provincialate and other offices -- he spent the rest of his life. He was a man of deep spirituality, much venerated as a preacher, spiritual director, and giver of retreats; he was also noted for his love of the poor and his earnest advocacy of almsdeeds. So great were his energy and enterprise that he set his stamp on all he undertook. Several London convents and Catholic institutions owe largely to his zeal and encouragement both their first foundation and their successful subsequent development. His writings comprise among others: "Salvage from the Wreck", sermons preached at the funerals of some notable Catholics (1890); "Watchers of the Passion", (1894), a series of meditations on the Passion, embodying the substance of his retreats; a number of sermons, tracts and other small publications, mostly of a topical kind.

No life of Father Gallwey has so far been written, except a slight sketch by Percy Fitzgerald (London, 1906).

SYDNEY F. SMITH

Galtelli-Nuoro

(Galtellinensis-Norensis)

Diocese in the province of Sassari (Sardinia), on a hill of the same name, suffragan of Caglari. In the neighbourhood there are quarries of red jasper. The ancient cathedral contains some good paintings. Nuoro, the Nora of the ancients, is a sub-prefecture of the same province, and stands about 2000 feet above sea-level. Near it are seen large quarries of granite and argentiferous lead, and a curious irregular ruin, apparently of early Roman origin. In the vicinity are twenty-four of the so-called Nuraghi (known locally as the Giants' Tombs, huge stone buildings in the shape of truncated cones. These belong to the neolithic age, and were a source of wonder even to the ancients. Here also are the Virghenes of Domos de Janas, a series of intercommunicating rooms excavated out of the granite rock. Galtelli was an episcopal see in 1138, when Innocent II made it a suffragan of Pisa; later, it was directly subject to the Holy See. In 1495, it was suppressed by Alexander VI, and its territory united to Cagliari. In 1787, at the request of King Victor Emmanuel III, it was re-established, but the bishop continued to live at Nuoro. Among its bishops of note was Fra Arnolfo de Bissalis (1366), renowned for his learning and eloquence. In the diocese are 25 parishes, 56,300 Catholics, 1 Franciscan monastery, 2 nunneries, 1 boys' boarding-school, and 3 girls' schools.

Cappelletti, Le Chiese d' Italia (1857), XIII, 95-99; Spano, Memorie sopra l'antica cattedrale di Galtelli (Cagliari, 1873); Martin, Storia eccl. della Sardegna (1841), III, 325-27, 85-88.

U. BENIGNI

Bernhard Galura

Prince-Bishop of Brixen; b. 21 August, 1764, at Herbolzheim, Bresigau; d. 17 May, 1856. After he had completed his classical studies in his native town he entered the convent of the Friars Minor at Altbreisach, but because of its suppression by Emperor Joseph II, his stay here was of short duration. In 1783 he entered the seminary of Freiburg where, after a brilliant course in the ecclesiastical sciences, he was honoured with the doctorate of Theology. He was ordained priest in 1788 in the seminary of Vienna whither he had gone to follow a course of practical theology. In the same year he returned to the seminary of Freiburg, and after acting as prefect of studies for two years he took up parochial work, first at Altoberndorf and later in the cathedral of Freiburg. Recognizing in him a man of learning and sound judgment, Emperoro Francis appointed him in 1805 spiritual referee at Gunzburg, but owing to political changes he lost his position here, and ten years later was assigned to the same duty at Innsbruck. In 1819 he became Vicar-General of Vorarlberg. On 30 January, 1820, he was consecrated auxiliary bishop of Brixen, and nine years later took formal possession of the chair of St. Cassian as Bishop of Brixen.

Like his distinguished predecessors, Galura directed all his efforts towards safeguarding the unity of the Faith in his diocese. By the establishment of missions and educational institutions and by the introduction of religious orders, especially the Jesuits (who had been banished from there) and the Sisters of Mercy (in 1838), he succeeded in restoring much of what the secular power had destroyed during the administration of his predecessor. He was highly respected by the civil authorities, and his deeply religious spirit, his charity towards the poor, and his administrative abilities have made him an ornament to his church and country. Besides numerous ascetical, homiletical, and catechetical works, he wrote also: (1) "Christkatholische Religion" (5 vols., Augsburg, 1796-1800); (3) "Lehrbuch der Christlichen Wohlgezogenheit" (Augsburg, 1841).

Hurter, Nomenel. (2nd ed.), III, 922; Trinkhauser, Leben und Wirken des Furstb. Galura (Innsbruk, 1856); Felder, Literaturzt. (1801), I, 118-32.

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Luigi Galvani

Physician, b. at Bologna, Italy, 9 September, 1737; d. there, 4 December, 1798. It was his original intention to study theology and to enter a monastic order. His family, however, persuaded him to abandon that idea. He took up the study of the natural sciences from the point of view of the anatomist and physiologist. After maintaining his thesis on the nature and formation of the bones, he was appointed public lecturer at the University of Bologna and at the age of twenty-five taught anatomy at the Institute of Sciences. He became especially noted as a surgeon and accoucheur. In 1790, after thirty years of wedded life, he lost his wife Lucia, the daughter of Dr. Galeazzi, one of his teachers. He kept his chair at the university until 20 April, 1798, when he resigned because he would not take the civil oath demanded by the Cisalpine Republic, it being contrary to his political and religious convictions. As a result he had to take refuge with his brother Giacomo and broke down completely through poverty and discouragement. Soon after this his friends obtained his exemption from the oath and his appointment, on account of his scientific fame, as professor emeritus. He died before the decree went into effect.

Galvani's work in comparative anatomy and physiology includes a study of the kidneys of birds and of their sense of hearing. He is famous more especially on account of his experiments concerning "the electrical forces in muscular movements", leading up to his theory of animal electricity. This began with the accidental observation, in 1780, of the twitching of the legs of a dissected frog when the bared crural nerve was touched with the steel scalpel, while sparks were passing from an electric machine nearby. He worked diligently along these lines, but waited for eleven years before he published the results and his ingenious and simple theory. This theory of a nervous electric fluid, secreted by the brain, conducted by the nerves, and stored in the muscles, has been abandoned by scientists on account of later discoveries, but Galvani was led to it in a very logical manner and defended it by clever experiments, which soon bore fruit. Thus he discovered that when nerve and muscle touch two dissimilar metals in contact with each other, a contraction of the muscle takes place; this led ultimately to his discussions with Volta and to the discovery of the Voltaic pile. The name Galvanism is given to the manifestations of current electricity.

Galvani was by nature courageous and religious. It is reported by Alibert that he never ended his lessons "without exhorting his hearers and leading them back to the idea of that eternal Providence, which develops, conserves, and circulates life among so many divers beings". His works (Opere di Luigi Galvani) were collected and published by the Academy of Sciences of the Institute of Bologna (1841-42). The following are some of the titles, with the original dates of publication in the "Antichi Commentari" of the Bologna Institute: "Thesis: De Ossibus" (1762); "De Renibus atque Ureteribus Volatilium" (1767); "De Volatilium Aure" (1768-70); "De Viribus Electricitatis in motu musculari commentarius" (1791), reprinted at Modena, 1792, with a note and dissertation by Gio. Aldini; translated by Mayer into German (Prague, 1793), and again published as a volume of Ostwald's "Klassiker" (Leipzig, 1894); "Dell' uso e dell' attività dell' arco conduttore nelle contrazioni de' muscoli" (1794); "Memorie sulla elettricità animale" (1797).

Popular Science Monthly, July, 1892; WALSH in Catholic World (June, 1904); ALIBERT, Eloges Historiques (Paris, 1806); VENTUROLI, Elogio (Bologna, 1802).

WILLIAM FOX

Galveston

DIOCESE OF GALVESTON (GALVESTONIENSIS).

The Diocese of Galveston was established in 1847 and comprises that part of the State of Texas, U.S.A., between the Sabine River on the east, the Colorado River on the west, the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the northern line of the counties of Lampasas, Coryell, McLennan, Limestone, Freestone, Anderson, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, and Shelby on the north, an area of 43,000 square miles.

French Recollects with La Salle attempted in 1685 to found the first missions among the Indians in Texas, and they were followed by Spanish Franciscans from Mexico sent in 1689 to build a barrier to French occupation. These efforts met with reverses, but early in the eighteenth century the missionary zeal of the Franciscans re-established many of the old missions and extended them in numerous new directions. They remained in a flourishing state until 1812 when they were suppressed by the Spanish Government. The colonization of Texas from the United States and the declaration of its independence as a republic in 1836 checked any further efforts to open the missions for several years, and then the Rev. John Timon, afterwards Bishop of Buffalo, and the Rev. John M. Odin, two Lazarists from the community in Missouri, visited the state and aroused the long-neglected religious sentiments of the people. Measures were taken for the promotion of Catholic immigration and the public officials of the new republic gave every encouragement to their work. In 1841 Father Odin was named Coadjutor Bishop of Detroit, but refused the Bulls. Texas was then made a vicariate Apostolic and Father Odin was consecrated titular Bishop of Claudiopolis, 6 March, 1842. There were then only four priests in Texas. Bishop Odin set to work vigorously to build up his charge. The Texan Congress returned several of the ancient churches to their original uses, schools were opened, and the Ursuline nuns, the first religious community in Texas, were introduced to care for them. In 1847 the pope erected the state into a bishopric with Galveston as its episcopal see and Bishop Odin was transferred to its charge. In addition to the Ursulines he secured the services of communities of the Sisters of the Incarnate Word, the Brothers of Mary, and the Oblates, to the latter of whom he gave charge, in November, 1854, of the College of the Immaculate Conception. He visited Europe twice to secure priests and material help for his diocese. On the death of Archbishop Blanc of New Orleans, Bishop Odin was promoted, 15 Feb., 1861, to be his successor. During his incumbency of the See of Galveston he increased the number of priests to forty-two and the churches to fifty, and left the diocese with a college, four academies for girls and five schools for boys. He was born at Ambierle, France, 25 Feb., 1801, and died there, 25 May, 1870.

Claude Mary Dubuis, C.S.C., an indefatigable missionary, who had served long and unselfishly for the Church in Texas, was his successor. He was born 10 March, 1817, at Coutouvre, Loire, France, and ordained priest at Lyons., 1 June, 1844, where he was also consecrated bishop, 23 November, 1862. After years of hardships in Texas he resigned, 12 July, 1881, but kept the title Bishop of Galveston, and retired to France. Here he lived at Vernaison in the Diocese of Lyons, receiving in 1894 promotion to the titular Archbishopric of Arca. He assisted the ordinary of Lyons in episcopal work until his death, which took place, 22 May, 1895. Peter Dufal, C.S.C., had been named coadjutor to Bishop Dubuis with the right of succession on 14 May, 1878. He was then Vicar Apostolic of Eastern Bengal and titular Bishop of Delcus, having been consecrated at Le Mans, France, 25 November, 1860. He was born 8 Nov.,1822, at Lamure, Puy-de-Dome, France, and ordained priest in the Diocese of Blois, 8 Sept., 1852. On translation to Galveston he retained his titular see; he resigned the Texas diocese on account of ill health, 18 April, 1880, and retired to the house of his Congregation of the Holy Cross at Neuilly, near Paris, France, where he died in 1889. Nicholas Aloysius Gallagher, fourth bishop, was appointed administrator of Galveston in the absence of Bishop Dufal, having been consecrated at Galveston, 30 April, 1882, titular of Canopus. In 1894 he succeeded to the title of Galveston. He also acted as administrator of Columbus, Ohio, on the death of Bishop Rosecrans in 1878. Born 19 Feb., 1846, at Temperanceville, Belmont County, Ohio, he was ordained priest, 25 December, 1868, at Columbus, Ohio.

The religious communities of men represented in the diocese are: the Jesuits who have charge of St. Mary's University, Galveston; the Basilians (from Canada) managing St. Thomas's College, Houston, St. Mary's Seminary, La Porte, and St. Basil's College, Waco; the Fathers of the Congregation of the Holy Cross at Austin; the Paulist Fathers at Austin.

The religious communities of women are: Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word; Sisters of Charity (Emmitsburg); Sisters of St. Dominic; Sisters of the Holy Cross; Sisters of St. Mary; Sisters of Divine Providence; Ursuline Sisters; Sisters of the Holy Family. Statistics (1909): Priests 82 (53 seculars, 29 religious); churches 82 (missions with churches 35); stations 35; chapels 16; brothers 6; women religious 375; ecclesiastical students 12; colleges for boys 4; students 375; academies for girls 9; parochial schools 32; pupils in academies and parish schools 5000; hospitals 7; Catholic population 56,000.

SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1894); IDEM. Hist. Cath. Missions (New York, 1855); REUSS, Biog. Cycl. Cath. Hierarchy of United States (Milwaukee, 1898); Catholic Drectory, 1909; Freeman's Journal (New York), Morning Star (New Orleans, June, 1870), files.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Galway and Kilmacduagh

DIOCESE OF GALWAY AND KILMACDUAGH (GALVIENSIS ET DUACENSIS).

Diocese in Ireland; an amalgamation of two distinct ancient sees; excepting the parish of Shrule (County Mayo) entirely in County Galway. Kilmacduagh, covering 137,520 acres, includes the whole Barony of Kiltartan, and part of Dunkellin and Loughrea. Galway diocese includes the barony of Galway and part of Moycullen and Clare. Its extent is less than Kilmacduagh, the united dioceses covering about 250,000 acres. Kilmacduagh coincides with the ancient territory of Hy Fiachrach Aidhne. On Ptolemy's map the district was called the country of the Gangani; later it was occupied by the Firbolg; and in the sixth century by the descendants of Fiachrach, brother of Niall of the Nine Hostages and uncle of Dathi. The time of its conversion to Christianity is uncertain. Probably it was Christian before the end of the sixth century, and it is certain that St. Colman was its first bishop. A near relative of King Guaire of Connaught, and a native of Kiltartan, he was born after the middle of the sixth century and educated at Arran, after which he lived for years a hermit's life in the Burren mountains. Drawn from his retreat by the persuasions of his friends, he founded a monastery at Kilmacduagh (610), becoming its abbot, and subsequently bishop of the whole Hy Fiachrach territory. He died in 632, and was buried at Kilmacduagh. In the five centuries following, the annalists make mention of only three bishops of Kilmacduagh. At the Synod of Kells, the diocese was made a suffragan of Tuam. Among its subsequent bishops we find men with the distinctively Irish names of O'Ruan, O'Shaughnessy, O'Murray, O'Felan, O'Brien, and O'Moloney. In the reign of Henry VIII the bishop was Christopher Bodkin, a time-server who earned the goodwill of Henry and of Elizabeth, and who through royal favour was promoted to the See of Tuam. Persecution had to be faced by his successors. One of these, Hugh De Burgo, was a prominent figure in the Confederation of Kilkenny (1642-50), and a prominent opponent of the Nuncio Rinuccini; when the war ended in the triumph of Cromwell, exile was his fate, imprisonment or death the fate of the priests, and confiscation that of the Catholic landholders. After 1653 the See of Kilmacduagh was ruled by vicars, but after 1720 the episcopal succession was regularly maintained. In 1750 Kilmacduagh was united with the smaller Diocese of Kilfenora, the latter situated entirely in County Clare, and corresponding in extent with the Barony of Corcomroe. This union has continued. At first the Bishop of Kilmacduagh was Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora, his successor Bishop of Kilfenora and Apostolic Administrator of Kilmacduagh, and so on alternately.

Contemporary with the monastery of Kilmacduagh was that of Annaghdown, on Lough Corrib, founded in he second half of the sixth century by St. Brendan. In process of time, Annaghdown became an episcocal see extending over the territory ruled by the O'Flahertys. In this district was the town of Galway. Placed where the waters of the Corrib mingle with the sea, it was at first but a fishing village. In the ninth century it was destroyed by the Danes; subsequently it was rebuilt and protected by a strong castle; in the twelfth century again destroyed by the King of Munster; and towards the end of that century wrested from the O'Flahertys by the powerful Anglo-Norman family of De Burgo. Other Anglo-Norman families also settled there, these in process of time being called the Tribes of Galway. Loyal to England and despising the old Irish, whom they drove out, the settlers made progress, and Galway in the first half of the seventeenth century, with its guilds of merchants, its mayor, sheriff, and free burgesses, was in trade, commerce, and wealth little inferior to Dublin itself. The Diocese of Annaghdown was joined to Tuam in 1324, and Galway town became in consequence part of the latter diocese. But the Galway men, regarding the surrounding people as little better than savages, were reluctant to be associated with them, and in 1484 obtained from the Archbishop of Tuam exemption from his jurisdiction. The arrangement, sanctioned by a Bull of Innocent VIII, was to have the church of St. Nicholas, at Galway, a collegiate church, governed by a warden and eight vicars; these having jurisdiction over the whole town, as well as over a few parishes in the neighbourhood. And warden and vicars "were to be presented and solely elected by the inhabitants of the town". It was a peculiar arrangement. The warden exercised episcopal jurisdiction, appointed to parishes, visited the religious institutions, but did not, of course, confer orders. The eight vicars resembled somewhat the canons of a cathedral church. In 1485 Galway obtained a new royal charter subjecting the town to a mayor, bailiffs, and corporation. In 1551 the warden and vicars were dispossessed of their church and lands, which were given to a lay warden and vicars, all Protestants. Just a century later the Catholics were driven from the town by the Cromwellians. Gradually they came back, and having been tolerated during the reign of Charles II and favoured under his successor, James II, had again to face persecution during the penal times. In 1731 the town contained about 5000 inhabitants. In 1747 the Protestant governor complained of the insolence of the Catholics, and of the number of priests coming there from abroad; in 1762 out of its 14,000 inhabitants all were Catholics except 350.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there were frequent disputes between the warden and the Archbishop of Tuam as to the latter's rights in Galway. There were troubles also attending the election of the warden and vicars. Driven from the corporation, the Catholics had no legally existing free burgesses, and had been compelled to meet by stealth, and constitute a mayor and corporation, so as to have the necessary electoral body. But the Galway Tribes insisted on keeping the wardenship in their own hands. When the repeal of the penal laws allowed a Catholic corporation to come into existence, in 1793, the inhabitants insisted on exercising their right to vote, and conflicts with the Tribes arose. These disputes were finally ended in 1831 by the extinction of the wardenship and the erection of Galway into an episcopal see. In 1866 the Bishop of Kilmacduagh being unable to discharge his duties, the Bishop of Galway was appointed Apostolic Administrator of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora, "durante beneplacito Sanctæ Sedis". In 1883 the union of the three dioceses was made permanent by papal Bull. Since that date the bishop is "Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh and Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora". Among those connected with the diocese several have acquired fame. St. Ceallagh, who died about 550, is still venerated in Kilchrist, St. Sourney in Ballindereen, St. Foila in Clarenbridge, St. Colga in Kilcolgan. In the ninth century lived Flan MacLonan, chief poet of Ireland. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries lived John Lynch, author of "Cambrensis Eversus"; O'Flaherty, author of the "Ogygia"; Dr. Kirwan, Bishop of Killala; MacFirbis, the annalist; Dr. Fahy, whose history has become a standard work; Dr. O'Dea, Bishop of Clonfert, and others.

Statistics (1909): parish priests, 29; administrator, 1; curates, 29; regulars, 20; churches, 53; houses of regulars, 4; convents, 10; college, 1; monasteries, 3; Catholic population in 1901, 70,576; non-Catholic, 1931.

HARDIMAN, History of Galway (Dublin, 1820); FAHY, History and Antiquities of Kilmacduagh (Dublin, 1893); O'FLAHERTY, Description of Iar Connaught (Dublin, 1846); BRADY, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); Irish Catholic Directory for 1909.

E.A. D'ALTON

Vasco da Gama

The discover of the sea route to East Indies; born at Sines, Province of Alemtejo, Portugal, about 1469; died at Cochin, India, 24 December, 1524.

His father, Estevão da Gama, was Alcaide Mor of Sines, and Commendador of Cercal, and held an important office at court under Alfonso V. After the return of Bartolomeu Dias, Estevão was chosen by João II to command the next expedition of discovery, but, as both died before the project could be carried into execution, the commission was given by Emmanuel I to Vasco, who had already distinguished himself at the beginning of the year 1490 by defending the Portuguese colonies on the coast of Guinea against French encroachments. Bartolomeu Dias had proceeded as far as the Great Fish River (Rio do Infante), and had in addition established the fact the coast of Africa on the other side of the Cape extended to the northeast. Pedro de Corvilhão on his way from India had descended the east coast of Africa as far as the twentieth degree of south latitude, and had become cognizant of the old Arabic-Indian commercial association. The nautical problem, therefore, to be solved by Vasco da Gama was clearly outlined, and the course for the sea route to the East Indies designated. In January, 1497, the command of the expedition was solemnly conferred upon Vasco da Gama, and on 8 July, 1497, the fleet sailed from Lisbon under the leadership of Vasco, his brother Paulo, and Nicoláo Coelho, with a crew of about one hundred and fifty men. At the beginning of November, they anchored in St. Helena Bay and, on the 25th of the same month, in Mossel Bay. On 16 December, the fleet arrived at the furthest landing point of Dias, gave its present name to the coast of Natal on Christmas Day, and reached by the end of January, 1498, the month of the Zambesi, which was in the territory controlled by the Arabian maritime commercial association. Menanced by the Arabs in Mozambique (2 March) and Mombasa (7 April), who feared for their commerce, and, on the contrary, received in a friendly manner at Melinda, East Africa (14 April), they reached under the guidance of a pilot on 20 May, their journey's end, the harbour of Calicut, India, which, from the fourteenth century, had been the principal market for trade in spices, precious stones, and pearls. Here also, as elsewhere, Gama skilfully surmounted the difficulties placed in his way by the Arabs, in league with the Indian rulers, and won for his country the respect needful for the founding a new colony.

On 5 October, 1498, the fleet began its homeward voyage. Coelho arrived in Portugal on 10 July, 1499; Paulo da Gama died at Angra; Vasco reached Lisbon in September, where a brilliant reception awaited him. He was appointed to the newly created post of Admiral of the Indian Ocean, which carried with it a high salary, and the feudal rights over Sines were assured to him. In 1502 Gama was again sent out, with his uncle Vicente Sodré and his nephew Estevão, and a new fleet of twenty ships, to safeguard the interests of the commercial enterprises established in the meantime in India by Cabral, and of the Portuguese who had settled there. On the outward voyage he visited Sofala (East Africa), exacted the payment of tribute from the Sheikh of Kilwa (East Africa), and proceeded with unscrupulous might, and even indeed with great cruelty, against the Arabian merchant ships and the Samudrian (or Zamorin) of Calicut. He laid seige to the city, annihilated a fleet of twenty-nine warships, and concluded favourable treaties and alliances with the native princes. His commercial success was especilly brilliant, the value of the merchandise which he brought with him amounting to more than a million in gold. Again high honours fell to his share, and in the year 1519 he received instead of Sines, which was transferred to the Order of Santiago, the cities of Vidiguira and Villa dos Frades, resigned by the Duke Dom Jayme of Braganza, with the jurisdiction and the title of count. Once again, in 1524, he was sent to India by the Crown, under João III, to supersede the Viceroy Eduardo de Menezes, who was no longer master of the situation. He re-established order, but at the end of the year he was stricken by death at Cochin. In 1539, his remains, which up to that time had lain in the Franciscan church there, were brought to Portugual and interred at Vidigueira. To commemorate the first voyage to India, the celebrated convent of the Hieronymites in Belem was erected. A large part of the "Lusiad" of Camoens deals with the voyages and discoveries of Vasco da Gama.

OTTO HARTIG

Gamaliel

(Greek form of the Hebrew name meaning "reward of God").

The name designates in the New Testament a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Law. Gamaliel is represented in Acts, v, 34 sqq., as advising his fellow-members of the Sanhedrin not to put to death St. Peter and the Apostles, who, notwithstanding the prohibition of the Jewish authorities, had continued to preach to the people. His advice, however unwelcome, was acted upon, so great was his authority with his contemporaries. We learn from Acts, xxii, 3, that he was the teacher of St. Paul; but we are not told either the nature or the extent of the influence which he exercised upon the future apostle of the Gentiles. Gamaliel is rightly identified with an illustrious Jewish doctor of the Law, who bore the same name and died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. In the Talmud, this Gamaliel bears, like his grandfather Hillel, the surname of "the Elder", and is the first to whom the title "Rabban", "our master", was given. He appears therein, as in the book of the Acts, as a prominent member of the highest tribunal of the Jews. He is also treated as the originator of many legal ordinances; as the father of a son, whom he called Simeon, after his father's name, and of a daughter who married the priest Simon ben Nathanael. The Jewish accounts make him die a Pharisee, and state that: "When he died, the honour of the Torah (the law) ceased, and purity and piety became extinct." At an early date, ecclesiastical tradition has supposed that Gamaliel embraced the Christian Faith, and remained a member of the Sanhedrin for the purpose of helping secretly his fellow-Christians (cf. Recognitions of Clement, I, lxv, lxvi). According to Photius, he was baptized by St. Peter and St. John, together with his son and with Nicodemus. His body, miraculously discovered in the fifth century, is said to be preserved at Pisa, in Italy.

Talmud of Jerusalem; Photius, Bibliotheca, Cod. 171; Taylor, The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (Cambridge, 1877); Fouard, St. Peter (tr., New York, 1893); Le Camus, L'oeuvre des Apôtres, I (Paris, 1905).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Jean Gamans

Born 8 July, 1606, at Ahrweiler (according to other sources at Neuenahr, about two miles from Ahrweiler; there does not appear to exist any documentary evidence to show that he was born at the little town of Eupen, as stated in the "Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus"); d. at the College of Aschaffenburg near Frankfort, 25 Nov., 1684. He entered the Society of Jesus at Trier on 24 April, 1623, having studied the humanities for five years and philosophy for two years at Cologne, where he had received the degree of Master of Arts. After making his novitiate, he devoted several months to a revision of his philosophical studies, and subsequently, from 1626, spent five years teaching in the college of Wurzburg, conducting his pupils through the five classes which comprised the complete course in humanities. He then studied theology for a year at Mainz (1631), after which, the houses of his province of the Upper Rhine being suppressed during the war with Sweden, he continued his theological studies for three years at Douai, where he was ordained priest on 26 March, 1633. These studies having come to an end in 1634, and being followed doubtless by the third year of probation, he discharged for several years the duties of chaplain to the land and naval troops in Belgium and Germany. We find him mentioned under this title (Castrensis) in the catalogue of the Flandro-Belgian province for 1641 as being attached to the professed house at Antwerp, where he made his profession of the four vows on 26 December of the same year. He lived here with the first two Bollandists, Jean Bolland and Godefroid Henschen, became inflamed with zeal for their work and was henceforth their assiduous collaborator, whithersoever his duty called him, but especially at Baden-Baden, where he resided for some time in order to direct the studies of the young princes of the House of Baden. He was undoubtedly there in 1641 and 1649. At the end of this latter year he resided in a missionary capacity at Ettlingen near Karlsruhe. Here we lose all sight of him until 1681, when he was attached to the College of Aschaffenburg near Frankfort, where he died 25 November, 1684.

For more than thirty years, it is stated in the death notice inserted in the Annual letters of the College of Aschaffenburg for that year, he was so immersed in the hagiographical researches which he had undertaken in behalf of his associates at Antwerp that he devoted to them even the hours of the night, taking only a short rest on the floor or a strip of matting. Indeed, his name occurs very often in the "Acta SS." at the head of documents transcribed by his hand, and even of commentaries written entirely by him (cf. "Bibl. des écriv. de la C. de J", sv. "Gamans"). A large number of papers of this description is to be found in the vast manuscript collection of the early Bollandists preserved at the Royal Library of Brussels and in the modern Ballandist library, although the largest part of his papers, dispatched to the Bollandists after his death, were engulfed in the Main, the vessel bearing the precious freight having unfortunately sunk. Gamans had also collected a mass of material for a "Metropolis Moguntina", which he wished to compose on the model of the "Metropolis Salisburgensis" published by Hund in 1582, and also for a history of the grand ducal House of Baden. As many as eight manuscripts of the latter work are known to exist, but no portion of it or of the "Metropolis Moguntina" has been printed.

CH. DE SMEDT

Gambling

Gambling, or gaming, is the staking of money or other thing of value on the issue of a game of chance. It thus belongs to the class of aleatory contracts which the gain or loss of the parties depends on an uncertain event. It is not gambling, in the strict sense, if a bet is laid on the issue of a game of skill like billiards or football. The issue must depend on chance, as in dice, or partly on chance, partly on skill, as in whist. Moreover, in ordinary parlance, a person who plays for small stakes to give zest to the game is not said to gamble; gambling connotes playing for high stakes.

In its moral aspect, although gambling usually has a bad meaning, yet we may apply to it what was said about betting. On certain conditions, and apart from excess or scandal, it is not sinful to stake money on the issue of a game of chance any more than it is sinful to insure one's property against risk, or deal in futures on the produce market. As I may make a free gift of my own property to another if I choose, so I may agree with another to hand over to him a sum of money if the issue of a game of cards is other than I expect, while he agrees to do the same in my favour in the contrary event.

Theologians commonly require four conditions so that gaming may not be illicit.

• What is staked must belong to the gambler and must be at his free disposal. It is wrong, therefore, for the lawyer to stake the money of his client, or for anyone to gamble with what is necessary for the maintenance of his wife and children.
• The gambler must act freely, without unjust compulsion.
• There must be no fraud in the transaction, although the usual ruses of the game may be allowed. It is unlawful, accordingly, to mark the cards, but it is permissible to conceal carefully from an opponent the number of trump cards one holds.
• Finally, there must be some sort of equality between the parties to make the contract equitable; it would be unfair for a combination of two expert whist players to take the money of a couple of mere novices at the game.

If any of these conditions be wanting, gambling becomes more or less wrong; and, besides, there is generally an element of danger in it which is quite sufficient to account for the bad name which it has. In most people gambling arouses keen excitement, and quickly develops into a passion which is difficult to control. If indulged in to excess it leads to loss of time, and usually of money; to an idle and useless life spent in the midst of bad company and unwholesome surroundings; and to scandal which is a source of sin and ruin to others. It panders to the craving for excitement and in many countries it has become so prevalent that it rivals drunkenness in its destructive effects on the lives of the people. It is obvious that the moral aspect of the question is not essentially different if for a game of chance is substituted a horse-race, a football or cricket match, or the price of stock or produce at some future date. Although the issue in these cases seldom depends upon chance, still the moral aspect of betting upon it is the same in so far as the issue is unknown or uncertain to the parties who make the contract. Time bargains, difference transactions, options, and other speculative dealings on the exchanges, which are so common nowadays, add to the malice of gambling special evils of their own. They lead to the disturbance of the natural prices of commodities and securities, do grave injury to producers and consumers of those commodities, and are frequently attended by such unlawful methods of influencing prices as the dissemination of false reports, cornering, and the fierce contests of "bulls" and "bears", i.e. of the dealers who wish respectively to raise or lower prices.

Hitherto we have prescinded from positive law in our treatment of the question of gambling. It is, however, a matter on which both the civil and the canon law have much to say. In the United States the subject lies outside the province of the Federal Government, but many of the Sates make gambling a penal offence when the bet is upon an election, a horse-race, or a game of chance. Betting contracts and securities given upon a bet are often made void. In England the Gaming Act, 1845, voids contracts made by way of gaming and wagering; and the Gaming Act, 1892, renders null and void any promise, express or implied, to pay any person any sum of money under, or in respect of, any contract or agreement rendered null and void by the Gaming Act, 1845, or to pay any sum of money by way of commission, fee, reward, or otherwise, in respect of any such contract or agreement, or of any services in relation thereto or in connection therewith.

From very early times gambling was forbidden by canon law. Two of the oldest (41, 42) among the so-called canons of the Apostles forbade games of chance under pain of excommunication to clergy and laity alike. The 79th canon of the Council of Elvira (306) decreed that one of the faithful who had been guilty of gambling might be, on amendment, restored to communion after the lapse of a year. A homily (the famous "De Aleatoribus") long ascribed by St. Cyprian, but by modern scholars variously attributed to Popes Victor I, Callistus I, and Melchiades, and which undoubtedly is a very early and interesting monument of Christian antiquity, is a vigorous denunciation of gambling. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), by a decree subsequently inserted in the "Corpus Juris", forbade clerics to play or to be present at games of chance. Some authorities, such as Aubespine, have attempted to explain the severity of the ancient canons against gambling by supposing that idolatry was often connected with it in practice. The pieces that were played with were small-sized idols, or images of the gods, which were invoked by the players for good luck. However, as Benedict XIV remarks, this can hardly be true, as in that case the penalties would have been still more severe.

Profane writers of antiquity are almost as severe in their condemnation of gambling as are the councils of the Christian Church. Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus tell us that by gambling men are led into fraud, cheating, lying, perjury, theft, and other enormities; while Peter of Blois says that dice is the mother of perjury, theft, and sacrilege. The old canonists and theologians remark that although the canons generally mention only dice by name, yet under this appellation must be understood all games of chance; and even those that require skill, if they are played for money.

The Council of Trent contented itself with ordering all the ancient canons on the subject to be observed, and in general prescribed that the clergy were to abstain from unlawful games. As Benedict XIV remarks, it was left to the judgment of the bishops to decide what games should be held to be unlawful according to the different circumstances of person, place, and time. St. Charles Borromeo, in the first Synod of Milan, put the Tridentine decree into execution, and drew up a list of games which were forbidden to the clergy, and another list of those that were allowed. Among those which he forbade were not only dicing in various forms, but also games something like our croquet and football. Other particular councils declared that playing at dice and cards was unbecoming and forbidden to clerics, and in general they forbade all games which were unbecoming to the clerical state. Thus, a council held at Bordeaux in 1583 decreed that the clergy were to abstain altogether from playing in public or in private at dice, cards, or any other forbidden and unbecoming game. The council held at Aix in 1585 forbade them to play at cards, dice or any other game of the like kind, and even to look on at the playing of such games. Another, held at Narbonne in 1609, decreed that clerics were not to play at dice, cards, or other unlawful and unbecoming games, especially in public.

There was some doubt as to whether chess was to be considered an unbecoming, and therefore, an unlawful, game for clerics. In the opinion of St. Peter Damian it was certainly unlawful. On one occasion he caught the Bishop of Florence playing chess, to while away the time when on a journey. The bishop tried to defend himself by saying that chess was not dice. The saint, however, refused to admit the distinction, especially as the bishop was playing in public. Scripture, he said, does not make express mention of chess, but it is comprised under the term dice. And Baronius defends the saint's doctrine. Some sciolist, he remarks, may say that St. Peter Damian was under a delusion in classing chess under dice, since chess is not a game of chance but calls for the exercise of much skill and talent. Let that be as it may, he proceeds, priests must at any rate be guided in their conduct by the words of St. Paul, who declared that what is not expedient, what is not edifying, is not allowed.

Modern ecclesiastical law is less exacting in this matter. The provincial Councils of Westminster are content with prescribing that clerics must abstain from unlawful games. The Plenary School of Maynooth, held in 1900, says that since not a little time is occasionally lost, and idleness is fostered by playing cards, the priest should be on his guard against such games, especially where money is staked, lest he incur the reproach of being a gambler. He is also exhorted to deter the laity by word and example from betting at horse-races, especially when the stakes are high. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore made a distinction between games which may not suitably be indulged in by a cleric, even when played in private, and games like cards which may be played for the sake of innocent recreation. It repeated the prohibition of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore that clerics are not to indulge in unlawful games, and only in moderation are to use those that are lawful, so as not to cause scandal. Nowadays, it is commonly held that positive ecclesiastical law only forbids games of chance, even to the clergy, when in themselves or for some extrinsic reason, such as loss of time or scandal, they are forbidden by the natural law.

FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Ludus (Paris 1861); BENEDICT XIV, De Synodo diæcesana (Ferrari, 1756); HEFELE Conciliengeschichte (Freiburg, 1873), I; SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908), I; Ecclesiastical Review (New York, 1905), XXXII, 134; THOMASSIN, Vetus Eccl. Disciplina, III, III, cc. Xlv, xlvi; DESHAYES, in VACANT, Dict. de Thiol. cath., s. v. AlÈatoires.

T. SLATER

Pius Bonifacius Gams

An ecclesiastical historian, b. at Mittelbuch, Würtemberg, 23 January, 1816; d. Munich, 11 May, 1892. His classical studies made at Biberach and Rottweil (1826-1834), he studied philosophy and theology at Tubingen (1834-38), entered the seminary of Rottenburg in 1838, and was ordained priest on 11 September, 1839. He filled various posts as tutor, vicar, parish priest, professor until 1 May, 1847, when he was appointed chairs of philosophy and general history by the theological faculty of Hildesheim. Finally he entered the Abbey of St. Boniface at Munich, which belonged to the Bavarian congregation of the Order of St. Benedict, and pronounced the monastic vows, 5 October, 1856, adding the name of Pius to that of Boniface. Gams filled several monastic offices, being successively master of novices, sub-prior, and prior. He is best known for his "Kirchengeschichte von Spanien", 3 vols. (Ratisbon, 1862-1879), and his "Series episcoporum Ecelesiae catholiae quotquot innotuerunt a beato Petro apostolo" etc. (Ratisbon, 1873-86, with two supplements). The "Kirchengeschichte von Spanien" is a conscientiously and methodically written work, critical, also, to a certain extent, in dealing with the earliest period of Spanish ecclesiastical history, though the author rarely abandons the aid which unreliable sources seem to furnish. The "Series episcoporum" has rendered useful service and is yet very helpful. It is a collection of the episcopal lists of all ancient and modern sees known to the author. Gaps are frequent in the lists of ancient sees, especially those of the Eastern Church. It was, of course, impossible to draw up a critical list (names and dates) for such remote times and larger information must be sought in extensive documentary works, e g. "Italia Sacra" and the like; as a rule, however, the author has ignored a number of scattered dissertations which would have rectified, on a multitude of points, his uncertain chronology. In 1850 Gams founded with his colleagues Alzog, F. W. Koch, Mattes, and G.J. Muller a "Theologische Monatschrift" which lasted two years (1850-1851), and in which he published a number of essays.

Works

"Geschichte der Kirche Jesu Christi im neunzehnten Jahrhunderte mit besonderer Rucksicht auf Deutschland"; 3 vols. (Innsbruck, 1854-1858); "Johannes der Taufer im Gefangnisse" (Tabingen, 1853); "Die elfte Sacularfeier des Martyrertodes des heiligen Bonifacius", etc. (Mainz, 1855); "Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien", 3 vols, in five parts (Ratisbon 1862-79); "Spanische Briefe" in "Historisch-politische Blatter", LVI, 134 sq., 208 sg, 311 sq., 418 sq., "Wetterleuchten auf der pyrenaischen Halbinsel", ibid, LVI, 67 sq; "Series episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae quotquot innotuerunt a beato Petro apostolo" (Ratisbon, 1873) supp I: "Hierarchia catholica Pio IX Pontifice Romano" (Munich, 1879), Supp. II: "Series episcoporum quae apparuit 1873 completur et continuatur ab anno circa 1870 ad 20 Febr. 1885" (Ratisbon, 1886); "Das Jahre des Martyrtodes der Apostel Petrus und Paulus" (Ratisbon, 1867).

H. LECLERCQ

Peter Gandolphy

(Or Gandolphi.)

Jesuit preacher; b. in London, 26 July, 1779; d. at East Sheen, Surrey, 9 July, 1821; son of John Vincent Gandolphi of East Sheen, and grandson of Count Pietro Gandolphi, of the ancient nobility of Genoa. Father Gandolphy's brother, John Vincent, married Teresa, eldest daughter of Thomas Hornyold, of Blackmore and Hanley. His only son succeeded to the Blackmore estates and assumed the name of Hornyold by Royal license in 1859. Hornyold was an ancient Catholic family in Worcestershire, and Blackmore Park (recent pulled down) was a fine example of an old English manor house, with numerous priests' hiding places. The present representative of the family, Alphonso Otto Gandolfi Hornyold, bears the title of Duke Gandolfi (a papal creation of 1899) as well as the old Genoese titles.

Father Gandolphi was educated in the Jesuit College at Liège, and also at Stonyhurst, where he was appointed as teacher of humanities in 1801. He was ordained priest about 1804, and his first charge was at Newport, Isle of Wight. He was then transferred to the Spanish chapel at Manchester Square, London (now known as St. James's, Spanish Place) where he soon attained great fame as a preacher; and as a worker among Protestants he made many converts. His methods, however, were somewhat infelicitous, and speedily incurred the censure of his ordinary, Bishop Poynter. It appears he wrote too speedily to be theologically exact, but there were certainly no heretical principles in his mind. Nevertheless it seems strange to read of a Catholic manual entitled the "Book of Common Prayer . . . . for the use of all Christians in the United Kingdom" which he brought out in 1812. On account of this, and of his "Sermons in defense of the Ancient Faith", Bishop Popynter felt it his duty to suspend him, and to denounce the offending works. Gandolphy went to Rome in person to defend himself, and in 1816 he obtained official approbation for the two censured works from S. P. Damiani, master of theology and Apostolic pentitentiary at St. Peter's, and F.J. O'Finan, prior of the Dominican convent of St. Sixtus and St. Clement. The Congregation of Propaganda, being anxious for a peaceable settlement of this unfortunate affair, required (1 March, 1817) that Gandolphy should be restored on his apologizing to Bishop Poynter for any unintentional disrespect which might have occurred in his address to the public, of which address also the bishop had complained. On 15 April Gandolphi accordingly wrote an apology, but the bishop in a pastoral letter on 24 April stated that the apology was inadequate, so at last on 8 July, Gandolphy made an unreserved apology; but this long drawn out public humiliation was too much for him. He resigned his post in 1818 and retired to his family home at East Sheen, where he died in a year or two. His principal works were: "A Defense of the Ancient Faith" (London, 1813-14); "Liturgy, or a Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, with other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. For the use of all Christians in the United Kingdom" (London, 1812, Birmingham,. 1815); "Lessons of Morality and Piety, extracted from the Sapiential Books" (London, 1822); and a number of controversial letters and sermons.

De Backer, Bibl. des Escrivains de la C. de J. (1869), i, 2029; Gentlemen's Magazine, LXXXIII, pt. II, 362; LXXXIV, pt. I, 470; XCI, pt. II, 185, 200; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Cooper, in Bibl. Nat. Biog., s. v.; Oliver, Collectanea S. J., Foley, records S.J., VII.

C.F. WEMYSS BROWN

Gangra

A titular see in the province of Paphlagonia; in the native tongue the word signifies goat, and even now large numbers of goats are seen in this region. It belonged originally to Galatia, and was then the capital of King Dejotarus, the adversary of Mithridates, and the friend of the Romans. Later the city became the metropolis of Paphlagonia. It never had more than five suffragan sees. Le Quien (I, 549-554) mentions twenty-two of its archbishops from the fourth to the twelfth century, none of whom is especially noteworthy. The metropolitan see must have been suppressed in the fourteenth century after the conquest of the country by the Turks. Captured by the Tamerland, in 1402, it was recaptured, in 1423, by Sultan Murad II; since that time it has always been Turkish. The most memorable event of its Christian history is the council held there, probably in 343, to condemn Eustathius of Armenia and his exaggerated asceticism. More than twenty canons of this council defend the legitimacy of Christian marriage against the indiscretions of Eustathius and especially of his disciples (Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles, Paris, 1907, I (2), 1029-45). It is now known as Tchiangre, and is a sandjak of the vilayet of Castamouni. It is situated at the foot of Mt. Olgassus and numbers 16,000 inhabitants, 800 of whom are Greeks and 500 Armenians, all schismatics. The ancient cathedral of St. Demetrius has been converted into a mosque.

S. VAILHÉ

Gap

(VAPINCENSIS).

Diocese; suffragan of Aix, includes the department of the Hautes-Alpes. Suppressed by the Concordat of 1801 and then united to Digne, this diocese was re-established in 1822 and comprises, besides the ancient Diocese of Gap, a large part of the ancient Diocese of Embrun. The name of this last metropolitan see, however, has been absorbed in the title of the Archbishop of Aix.

DIOCESE OF GAP

Ancient traditions in liturgical books, of which at least one dates from the fourteenth century, state that the first Bishop of Gap was St. Demetrius, disciple of the Apostles and martyrs. Father Victor de Buck in the Acta Sanctorum (October, XI) finds nothing inadmissible in these traditions, while Canon Albanès defends them against M. Roman. Albanès names as bishops of Gap the martyr St. Tigris (fourth century), then St. Remedius (394-419), whom the Abbé Duchesne makes a Bishop of Antibes and who was involved in the struggle between Pope Zosimus and Bishop Proculus of Marseilles, finally St. Constantinus, about 439. According to Duchesne the first historically known bishop is Constantinus, present at the Council of Epaone in 517. The church of Gap had, among other bishops, St. Aregius (or Arey, 579-610?), who established at Gap a celebrated literary school and was held in great esteem by St. Gregory the Great; also St. Arnoude (1065-1078), a monk of Trinité de Vendôme, named bishop by Alexander II to replace the simoniac Ripert, and who became the patron of the episcopal city.

ARCHDIOCESE OF EMBRUN

The Archdiocese of Embrun had as suffragans, Digne, Antibes and Grasse, Vence, Glandèves, Senez, and Nice. Tradition ascribes the evangelization of Embrun to Sts. Nazarius and Celsus, martyrs under Nero. The first bishop was St. Marcellinus (354-74). Other bishops of Embrun were St. Albinus (400-37); St. Palladius (first half of the sixth century); St. Eutherius (middle of the seventh century); St. James (eighth century); St. Alphonsus (eighth century); St. Marcellus (end of the eighth century), whom Charlemagne sent to evangelize Saxony; St. Bernard (805-25), under whose episcopate Charlemagne enriched the Diocese of Embrun; St. Benedict (beginning of the tenth century), martyred by the Saracen invaders; St. Liberalis (920-40); St.Hismide (1027-45); St. Guillaume (1120-34), founder of the celebrated Abbey of Boscodon; St. Bernard Chabert (1213-35), Henry of Segusio (1250-71), known as Ostiensis, i.e. Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, an orator and canonist of renown; the Dominican Raimond of Mévolhon (1289-94), who defended the doctrine of St. Thomas against the attacks of English theologians; Bertrand of Deaux (1323-38), who as the legate of Clement VI at Rome did much to bring about the downfall of Rienzi; Jacques Gelu (1427-32), one of the first prelates to recognize the supernatural vocation of Joan of Arc; Giulio de' Medici) (1510-11), later pope under the name of Clement VII; Cardinal François de Tournon (1517-26), employed on diplomatic missions by Francis I, and founder of the College de Tournon; Cardinal de Tencin (1724-40), who in September, 1727, caused the condemnation by the Council of Embrun of the Jansenist Soanen, Bishop of his suffragan See of Senez. St. Vincent Ferrer preached several missions against the Vaudois in the Diocese of Embrun. Besides the bishops named the following are honored as saints in the present Diocese of Gap: Vincent, Orontius, and Victor, martyrs in Spain in the fourth century, the anchorite Veranus (sixth century), afterwards Bishop of Cavaillon, and the anchorite St. Donatus (sixth century).

The Diocese of Gap possesses two noted places of pilgrimage, Notre-Dame d'Embrun at Embrun, where Charlemagne erected a basilica, visited by Pope Leo III and Kings Henry II and Louis XVIII. Louis XI was wont to wear in his cap a leaden image of Notre-Dame d'Embrun. The other is that of Notre-Dame du Laus, where during fifty-four years (1664-1718) the blessed Virgin. appeared "an incalculable number of times" to a shepherdess, Venerable Benoite Rencurel. Three orders of women had their origin in the diocese. The Sisters of Providence, a teaching and nursing order, established in 1823 from the Sisters of Portieux (Vosges) and after 1837 an independent congregation; the Sisters of Saint Joseph, founded in 1837 for teaching and nursing; the Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary, founded in 1835 for teaching. The Diocese of Gap, numbering 109,510 inhabitants, had in 1906 at the cessation of the Concordat, 26 parishes, 218 missions, and 15 curacies, paid by the state. During the Middle Ages there were in the mountainous region which forms the present diocese more than seventy hospitals, maladreries, lazarettoes, or houses of refuge, administered by two congregations of the vicinity, the Brothers of La Madeleine and the Brothers of Holy Penitence. About half of these asylums disappeared during the religious wars of the sixteenth century. The others with the exception of half a score were suppressed by royal command about 1690, and their goods given to the large hospitals of Gap, Embrun, and Briangon. In 1900, before the Law of Associations was enforced, there were in the Diocese of Gap five maternity hospitals, a school for deaf mutes, one orphanage for boys and two for girls, seven hospitals or asylums, two institutions for the care of the sick in their homes, all under the direction of religious orders.

Gallia Christiana (Nova, 1715), I, 452-473, Instrumenta, 86-89, (Nova, 1725), III, 1051-1107; Instrumenta, 177-188, 205-8; ALBANES, Gallia christiana Novissima (Montbeliard, 1899), I, DEPERY, Histoire hagiologique du diocese de Gap (Gap, 1852); FISQUET, France Pontificale (Paris, 1868); GAILLAUD, Histoire de Notre Dame d'Embrun (Gap, 1862); ROMAN, Sigillographie du diocese de Gap (Grenoble, 1870); IDEM, Tableau historique du departement des Hautes-Alpes (Paris, 1889-91); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibl., pp. 988, 1266.

GEORGES GOYAU

Anne García

Better known as Venerable Anne of St. Bartholomew, Discalced Carmelite nun, companion of St. Teresa; b. at Almendral, Old Castile, 1 Oct. 1550; d. at Antwerp, 7 June, 1626. She was of humble origin and spent her youth in solitude and prayer tending the flocks. When she first went to Avila to enter the Carmelite convent, she was refused, being too young; for several years after, she suffered much at the hands of her brothers. Finally, overcoming all obstacles, she entered the convent as lay sister and made her vows on 15 August, 1572. For the next ten years she filled the post of infirmarian; her spirit of prayer and humility endeared her to St. Teresa, whose almost inseparable companion and secretary she now became. St. Teresa died in her arms at Alba de Tormes in 1582. Anne afterwards returned to Avila, took part in the foundation of a convent at Ocana (1595), and was one of the seven nuns selected for the introduction of the order into France (October, 1604). The French superiors, desirous of sending her as prioress to Pontoise, obliged her to pass from the state of lay sister to that of choir sister. So unusual a step met with the disapproval of her companions, but as St. Teresa had foretold it many years previously Anne offered no resistance. She had also been forewarned that the same step would cause her great sufferings, and indeed her priorship at Pontoise (January to September, 1605), Paris (October, 1605, to April, 1608), Tours May, 1608, to 1611) brought her heavy trials, not the least of which were differences with her superiors. At the expiration of her last term of office she returned to Paris, but warned by a vision, she proceeded to Belgium (October, 1611), where she founded and became prioress of a convent at Antwerp (27 Oct., 1612), which she governed to the end of her life. Twice she was instrumental in delivering the town from the hands of the enemy. In 1735, Anne of St. Bartholomew was declared Venerable; her process of beatification is not yet completed. Her writings include a number of letters still preserved, an autobiography now at Antwerp, edited by M. Bouix (Paris, 1869-72), and several treatises on spiritual matters, which appeared at Paris in 1646.

ENRIQUEZ, Historia de la Vida etc. (Brussels, 1632, Fr. tr. at Paris, 1633); La Vie et les instructions de la Ven. Mere Anne de S. Barthelemy, par un solitaire de Montaigne (Brussels, 1708; new ed., Paris, 1895).

B. ZIMMERMAN

St. Gonsalo Garcia

Born of a Portuguese father and a Canarese mother in Bassein, East India, about the year 1556 or 1557; d. 5 Feb., 1597. His early training was entrusted to the Jesuits, who brought him up in their college in Bassein Fort. At the age of twenty-four or twenty-five he went to Japan in the company of some Jesuit Fathers who were ordered, in 1580, to leave Bassein, and join their mission in the former country. He quickly acquired a knowledge of the language; and as he was of an amiable disposition he won the hearts of the people and did great service as a catechist for eight years. He then left this kind of work and betook himself to Alacao for trading purposes. His business soon flourished and branches were opened in different places. During his frequent visits to Manila he made the acquaintance of the Franciscans, and being drawn more and more towards them he finally joined the Seraphic Order as a lay brother. He sailed from the Philippine Islands with other companions in religion under Petrus Baptista, 26 May, 1592, on an embassy from the Spanish Governor to the Emperor of Japan. After working zealously for the glory of God for more than four years, the Emperor Taiko-Sama, suspecting the missionaries were aiming at the overthrow of his throne, ordered St. Garcia and his companions to be guarded in their Convent at Miaco on 8 December, 1596. A few days afterwards, when they were singing vespers, they were apprehended and with their hands tied behind their backs were taken to prison. On 3 January, 1597, the extremities of the left ears of twenty-six confessors, St. Garcia amongst the number, were cut off; but were with great respect collected by the Christians. On 5 February of the same year, the day of the martyrdom, St. Garcia was the first to be extended on, and nailed to, the cross, which was then erected in the middle of those of his companions. Two lances piercing the body from one side to the other and passing through the heart, whilst the saint was singing the praises of God during the infliction of the torture, put an end to his sufferings and won for Garcia the martyr's crown. In 1627 these twenty-six servants of God were declared venerable by Urban VIII; their feast occurs on 5 February, the anniversary of their sufferings; and in 1629 their veneration was permitted throughout the Universal Church. The people of Bassein practiced devotion towards the saint; after the severe persecution to which Christianity was subjected in that region, from about 1739 he was gradually entirely forgotten until a well-known writer recently undertook to write the history of the place, and drew the attention of the public to St. Garcia Gonsalo. Owing to the praiseworthy endeavors of a secular priest, and the great interest evinced by the present Bishop of Damaun in the promotion of the devotion towards the saint, the feast of St. Garcia is now annually celebrated with great solemnity; and pilgrims from all parts of Bassein, Salsette, and Bombay flock to the place on that occasion.

The Bull of Canonization; Bibliotheca Historica Filipina; Supplement to RIBADENEIRA, History of the Eastern Archipelago; GUERIN, Lives of the Saints; FERNANDES, Life of Saint Gonsalo Garcia; DE MONTE ALVERNE, Panegyric on St. Gonsalo Garcia; Bombay Catholic Examiner for 1903, 1904; O Anglo Lusitano for 1903, 1904.

MANOEL D'SÁ

Gabriel García Moreno

Ecuadorean patriot and statesman; b. at Guayaquil, 24 December, 1821; assassinated at Quito, 6 August, 1875. His father, Gabriel García Gomez, a native of Villaverde, in Old Castile, had been engaged in commerce at Callao before removing to Guayaquil, where he married Dona Mercedes Moreno, the mother of the future Ecuadorean martyr president. Gabriel García Gomez died while his son was still young, and the boy's education was left to the care of his mother, who appears to have been a woman of unusual ability for her task; she was, moreover, fortunate in securing as her son's tutor Fray Jose Betancourt, the famous Mercedarian, under whose tuition young García Moreno made rapid progress. A great part of his father's fortune having been lost, it was not without some considerable sacrifices that the youth was able to attend the university course at Quito. These material obstacles once overcome, he passed brilliantly through the schools, distancing all his contemporaries, and on 26 October, 1844, received his degree in the faculty of law (Doctor en Jurisprudencia) from the University of Quito.

In less than a year after his graduation young García Moreno had begun to take an active part in Ecuadorean politics, joining in the revolutionary movement which eventually replaced the Flores administration by that of Roca (1846). He soon distinguished himself as a political satirist by contributions to "El Zurriago", but what more truly presaged the achievements of his riper life was his good and useful work as a member of the municipal council of Quito. At the same time he was studying legal practice, and on 30 March, 1848, was admitted advocate. Immediately after this the deposed Flores, supported by the Spanish government, made an attempt to regain the presidency of Ecuador; García Moreno unhesitatingly came forward in support of the Roca administration, and when that administration fell, in 1849, he entered upon his first period of exile. After some months spent in Europe he returned to his native republic in the employ of a mercantile concern, and it was then that he took the first decisive step which marked him conspicuously for the enmity of the anti-Catholics, or, as they preferred to call themselves, the Liberals. At Panama he had fallen in with a party of Jesuits who had been expelled from the Republic of New Granada and wished to find asylum in Ecuador. García Moreno constituted himself the protector of these religious, and they sailed with him for Guayaquil; but on the same vessel that carried the Jesuits and their champion, an envoy from New Granada also took passage for the express purpose of bringing diplomatic influence to bear with the dictator, Diego Noboa, to secure their exclusion from Ecuadorean territory. No sooner had the vessel entered the harbour of Guayaquil than García Moreno, slipping into a shore boat, succeeded in landing some time before the New Granadan envoy; the necessary permission was acquired from the Ecuadorean government, and the Jesuits obtained a foothold in that country. How soon the report of this exploit spread among the anti-Catholics of South America was evidenced by the fact that within a year Jacobo Sánchez, a New Granadan, had attacked García Moreno in the pamphlet "Don Felix Frias en Paris y los Jesuitas en el Ecuador", to which García Moreno's reply was an able "Defensa de los Jesuitas".

In 1853 he began to publish "La Nación", a periodical which, according to its prospectus, was intended to combat the then existing tendency of the government to exploit the masses for the material benefit of those who happened to be in power. At the same time García Moreno's programme aimed distinctly and professedly to defend the religion of the people. He was already known as a friend of the Jesuits; he now assumed the role of friend of the common people, to which he adhered sincerely and consistently to the day of his death. The Urbina faction, then in power, were quick to recognize the importance of "La Nación", which was suppressed before the appearance of its third number, and its proprietor was exiled, for the second time. Having been, meanwhile, elected senator by his native province of Guayaquil, he was prevented from taking his seat, on the ground that he had returned to Quito without a passport. After a sojourn at Paita, García Moreno once more visited Europe. He was now thirty-three years of age, and his experience of political life in Ecuador had deeply convinced him of his people's need of enlightenment. It was undoubtedly with this conviction as his guide and incentive that he spent a year or more in Paris, foregoing every form of pleasure, a severe, indefatigable student not only of political science, but also of the higher mathematics, of chemistry, and of the French public school system. On his return home, under a general amnesty in 1850, he became rector of the central University of Quito; a position of which he availed himself to commence lectures of his own in physical science. Next year he was active in the senate in opposition to the Masonic party, which had gained control of the government, while at the same time he persistently and forcibly, though unsuccessfully, struggled for the passage of a law establishing a system of public education modelled on that of France. In 1858 he once more established a paper, "La Union Naciónal", which became obnoxious to the government by its fearless exposure of corruption and its opposition to the arbitrary employment of authority; and once more a political crisis ensued.

García Moreno was on principle an advocate of orderly processes of government, and that his professions in this regard were sincere his subsequent career fairly demonstrated, but at this juncture he was obliged to realize that his country was in the grip of a corrupt oligarchy, bent upon the suppression of the Church to which the whole mass of his fellow countrymen were devoted, and disposed to keep the masses in ignorance so as to sway them the more easily to its own ends. He had, years before, attacked "the revolutionary industry", a phrase probably first used by him, in the prospectus of "La Nación"; it now became necessary for him to descend to revolutionary methods. Besides, the little Republic of Ecuador was at this time menaced by its more powerful neighbour on the south, Peru. García Moreno, if he was sure of opposition at the hands of the soi-disant Liberals, was also, by this time, recognized by the masses as a leader loyal to both their common Faith and their common country, and thus he was able to organize the revolution which made him head of a provisional government established at Quito. The republic was now divided, General Franco being at the head of a rival government established at Guayaquil. In vain did García Moreno offer to share his authority with his rival for the sake of national unity. As a defensive measure against the threat of Peruvian invasion, García Moreno entered into negotiations with the French envoy with a view to securing the protection of France, a political mistake of which his enemies knew how to avail themselves to the utmost. He was now obliged to assume the character of a military leader, for which he possessed at least the qualifications of personal courage and decisive quickness of resolution. While García Moreno inflicted one defeat after another upon the partisans of Franco, the latter, as representing Ecuador, had concluded with Peru the treaty of Mapasingue. The people of Ecuador rose in indignation at the concessions made in this treaty, and Franco, even his own followers being alienated, was defeated at Babahoya (7 August, 1860) and again at Salado River, where he was driven to take refuge on a Peruvian vessel. When his adversary had been forcibly driven from the country, García Moreno showed his magnanimity in the proclamation in which he sought to heal as quickly as possible the scars of this civil war: "The republic should regard itself as one family; the old demarcations of districts must be so obliterated as to render sectional ambitions impossible". In the reorganization of the Constituent Assembly, which was summoned to meet in January, 1861, he insisted that the suffrage should not be territorial, but "direct and universal, under the necessary guarantees of intelligence and morality, and the number of representatives should correspond (proportionally) to that of the electors represented". The Convention, which met on 10 January, elected García Moreno president; he delivered his inaugural address on the 2d of April following. Then began that series of reforms among which were the restitution of the rights of the Church and a radical reconstruction of the fiscal system. In the immediate present he had to deal with the machinations of his old adversary Urbina, who, from his retirement in Peru, kept up incessant intrigues with the opposition at home, and still more with the governments of neighbouring republics. García Moreno soon came to a sensible and honourable understanding with the Peruvian government.

A violation of Ecuadorean territory by New Granada, though it led to a hostile collision in which García Moreno himself took part, had no serious consequences until the Arboledo administration gave place to that of General Mosquera, whose ambition it was to make New Granada the nucleus of a great "Colombian Confederation", in which Ecuador was to be included. Urbina was not above writing encouraging letters to the New Granadan or Colombian dictator who was scheming against the independence of Ecuador. An invitation to García Moreno to confer with Mosquera elicited a very plain intimation that, so far as the national obliteration of Ecuador was concerned, there was nothing to confer about. But in the meantime the Republic of Ecuador had ratified a concordat with Pope Pius IX (1862), and the discontent of the Regalista party at home with the provisions of that instrument gave Mosquera an excellent pretext for encroaching upon his neighbour's rights. The Regalistas were, without knowing it, a kind of Erastians, who claimed the appointment to ecclesiastical benefices as an inalienable right of the civil power. The President of Ecuador was charged with "casting Colombia, manacled, at the feet of Rome"; Urbina issued "manifestos" from Peru in the sense of "South America for the South Americans"; while the proclamation of President Mosquera recited, with others which seem to have been introduced merely for the sake of appearances, his three really significant grounds of complaint against García Moreno: that the latter had ratified the concordat; that he maintained a representative of the Holy See at Quito; that he had brought Jesuits into Ecuador. It may be remarked here, in passing, that if Mosquera had added to this catalogue of offences those of insisting upon free primary education for the masses, upon strict auditing of the public accounts, and a considerable bona fide outlay upon roads and other public utilities, his proclamation might have served adequately as the indictment upon which García Moreno was condemned and eventually put to death by those whom Pius IX ironically called "the valiant sectaries".

Mosquera was determined to have war, and all the efforts of the Ecuadorean government were of no avail to prevent it. At the battle of Cuaspud all but two battalions of the forces of Ecuador fled ignominiously. It is a matter for wonder, considering the grounds upon which he had declared war, that Mosquera, in the Peace of Pinsaquí, which followed this victory, should have left the Concordat of 1862, the delegate Apostolic, and the Jesuits just as they were. In March,1863, García Moreno tendered his resignation to the National Assembly, who insisted upon his remaining in office until the expiration of his term. Nevertheless he had to face, during the next two years, repeated seditions and filibustering raids. After sparing the lives of the leaders in one of these movements, though they had by all law and custom incurred the penalty of death, he was severely criticized for ordering the execution of another such when it had become evident that an example was necessary for the peace of the republic. In a naval battle at Jambelí (27 June, 1865) at which García Moreno was personally present, the defeat of the Urbina forces was complete, and tranquillity reigned until the presidential term expired on the 27th of the following August.

In the following year began what may be considered as a connected series of attempts which terminated, nine years later, in the assassination of García Moreno. The dispute between Spain and Peru over the Chinchas Islands had led to a war in which, following García Moreno's advice, his successor Jeronimo Carrión had cast in the lot of Ecuador with that of the sister republic and its then ally, Chile. The ex-president was sent as minister plenipotentiary to Chile, with a commission to transact business with President Prado of Peru on his way. On his arrival at Lima an attempt was made to assassinate him, but it ended in the death of his assailant. His diplomatic mission resulted excellently for the friendly relations between Ecuador and its neighbours; the sojourn at Santiago also inspired García Moreno with a high admiration for Chile, and he even made up his mind to attempt a change of the Ecuadorean constitution so as to make it more like that of Chile, a project which he carried into effect in the National Convention of 1869. On his return to Ecuador he found himself a second time in the uncongenial position of leader of a revolution. To anticipate a plot which the Liberals, led by one of Urbina's relations, were known to be forming, the conservatives of Ecuador had risen, declared Carrión deposed, and made García Moreno head of the provisional government. The justice of the grounds on which this extreme action was taken was established by the attempt of Veintemilla, at Guayaquil, only two months later, in March, 1869.

Having been duly confirmed as president ad interim by the National Convention of May, 1869, García Moreno resumed his work for the enlightenment, as well as the religious well-being, of his people. It was in these last years of his life that he did so much for the teaching of physical sciences in the university by introducing there the German Fathers of the Society of Jesus. The medical schools and hospitals of the capital benefited vastly by his intelligent and zealous efforts. In September, 1870, the troops of Victor Emmanuel occupied Rome; and on 18 January, 1871, García Moreno, alone of all the rulers of the world, addressed a protest to the King of Italy on the spoliation of the Holy See. The pope marked his appreciation of this outburst of loyalty by conferring on the President of Ecuador the decoration of the First Class of the Order of Pius IX, with a Brief of commendation dated, 27 March, 1871. It was, on the other hand, notorious that certain lodges had formally decreed the death of García Moreno, who, in a letter to the pope, used about this time the following almost prophetic words: "What riches for me, Most Holy Father, to be hated and calumniated for my love for our Divine Redeemer! What happiness if your benediction should obtain for me from Heaven the grace of shedding my blood for Him, who being God, was willing to shed His blood for us upon the Cross!" The object of numberless plots against his life, García Moreno pursued his way with unruffled confidence in the future -- his own and his country's. "The enemies of God and the Church can kill me", he once said, "but God does not die" (Dios no muere).

He had been re-elected president, and would soon have entered upon another term of office, when, towards the end of July, 1875, the police of Quito were apprised that a party of assassins had begun to dog García Moreno's footsteps. When, however, the chief of police warned the intended victim, the latter so discouraged all attempts to hedge him about with precautions, as to almost excuse the carelessness of his official guardians. It came out in evidence that within the fortnight preceding the finally successful attempt, the same assassins had at least twice been foiled by the president's failing to appear on occasions when he had been expected. Finally, on the evening of 6 August, the assassins found their prey unprotected, leaving the house of some very dear friends; they followed him until he had reached the Treasury, and there Faustino Rayo, the leader of the band, suddenly attacked him with a machete, inflicting six or seven wounds, while the other three assisted in the work with their revolvers. On hearing of the death of García Moreno, Pope Pius IX ordered a solemn Mass of Requiem to be celebrated in the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere. The same sovereign pontiff erected to his memory, in the Collegio Pio-Latino, at Rome, a monument on which García Moreno is designated:

E. MACPHERSON

Garcilasso de la Vega

Spanish lyric poet; b. at Toledo, 6 Feb., 1503; d. at Nice, 14 Oct., 1536. A noble and a soldier, he spent much time in Italy during the campaigns of Charles V, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. For a brief space (1531-2), he lost the imperial favour in consequence of his connivance at the marriage of his nephew with a royal ward contrary to the emperor's wishes, and was imprisoned on an island in the Danube. When liberated, he entered the service of the Spanish viceroy at Naples, shared in the expedition which, in 1535, Charles directed against Tunis, and in the following year met his death while leading an attack upon a castle in Southern France at the command of his master. In the history of Spanish literature Garcilasso occupies a prominent place because of the part which he played, along with Boscan, in naturalizing the Italian verse-forms in Spanish. To him is due no little credit for the skill with which he transplanted, even excelling his older comrade Boscan, the Italian sonnet with its hendecasyllable, the canzone, the terza rima, and other forms. The bulk of his poetry as preserved is not great. In the first edition, which was printed by Boscan's widow at the end of the volume containing the first edition of her husband's compositions, it embraces, besides some early villancicos in the older and native Spanish manner, three eglogas, two elegias, an epistola in blank verse, five canciones, which are rather complicated in their structure, and thirty-seven or thirty-eight sonnets. Although he passed his life in the camp, he hardly reflects at all in his poetry the martial spirit that actuated him; the pastoral note with its gentle melancholy is most persistent in his strains. As he was well acquainted with the Italian poets of the Renaissance, he does not fail to echo here and there some of their best passages, and reminiscences of Tansillo, Sannazzaro, and Bernardo Tasso are easily found in his work. Of the ancients, Horace had much to do with the development of his graceful poetic manner.

J.D.M. FORD

Garcilasso de la Vega (the Inca)

Historian of Peru; b. at Cuzco, Peru, 12 April, 1539; d. at Córdoba, Spain, c. 1617. The name Garcilasso is a corruption of Garcia Laso, his real name. The historian's father was the Spanish conqueror, Sebastian Garcilasso de la Vega y Vargas, who was born at Badajoz, Spain, and died at Cuzco, 1559. The elder Garcilasso had served in Mexico under Hernán Cortez, in Guatemala under Deigo de Alvarado, and in Peru under Francisco Pizarro. In 1548, he had been named Governor of Cuzco, where, unlike others of the conquerors, he had done much to better the condition of the natives. Earlier in life, he had married an Inca princess, the historian's mother. He died in 1559, while still Governor of Cuzco, being one of the very few Spanish conquerors of Peru who did not die a violent death. The Inca mother taught her son the language of the ancient inhabitants of Peru, and suggested to him the idea of writing a history of these people. For this purpose, Garcilasso travelled over the entire empire of the Incas, got as much information suitable for his purpose as he could gather from both the natives and the new colonists, and consulted the few remaining monuments of that race. Being fearful of Garcilasso's growing influence with the natives of Peru, Philip II ordered him to proceed to Spain, whither he went in 1559, shortly after the death of his father. He served there for some time under John of Austria in the latter's campaign against the Moors of Granada. About 1584, he wrote his "Historia de la Florida", describing the expoits of Hernando de Soto in that country, and published it in London. In 1600, he began the first part of his "Comentarios Reales", which is a general history of Peru. This first part, dealing with the early history of the Incas, he finished in 1604, and published at Lisbon in 1609. In 1612, he finished the second part, dealing with the conquest of Peru by the Spaniards, and published it at Cordova in 1616. As a historian of Peru and its people, Garcilasso enjoyed singular advantages, for his mother, an Inca princess and her relations told him everything concerning their ancestors, omitting nothing, as they considered him one of their race. On the other hand, his father, who was the Governor of Cuzco, was on intimate terms with many of the conquerors, so that from them the historian heard the accounts of their deeds. Garcilasso, therefore, was in a position to get information at first hand from both the natives and their conquerors. His work is of great historic value, as it constitutes practically the only document we possess of the ancient civilization of Peru. The first part was translated into French by Pradelle-Beaudoin (Paris, 1633, and Amsterdam, 1737, 2 vols.), and again by Dalibard (Paris, 1744, 2vols.), into German by Bottgeer (Nordhausen, 1786). The second part was translated into French by Pradelle-Beaudoin (Paris, 1646, 1658, and 1707), and into English by Rigault (London, 1688).

PRESCOTT, "Conquest of Peru" (New York, 1855); MARKHAM, "Garcilaso's Royal Commentaries" (tr. London, 1869).

VENTURA FUENTES

Aloisio Gardellini

Born at Rome, 4 Aug., 1759; died there, 8 Oct., 1829. He is famous chiefly for his collection of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites. Until 1587, the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the administration of the sacraments had been subject to regulations made by various popes. Necessarily, in the course of time, these regulations became somewhat confused by reason of overlapping, amplification, and abolition. In the year mentioned above, Sixtus V, in the Constitution "Immensae aeterni Dei", called into being a body of cardinals, bishops, and clerics, whose work was to guard and guide the decorous celebration of the church offices. A collection of papal regulations and congregational decrees was published in 1730 by John Baptist Pithonius, a Venetian priest, the title of his book being "Constitutiones pontificae et Romanorum Congregationum decisiones ad sacros Ritus spectantes". This work was somewhat imperfect, and it was not until 1807 that Gardellini published the first two volumes of his well-known collection of the decrees of the Congregation of Rites, to which was prefixed "Sacrorum rituum studiosis monitum". Gardellini was a very profound student, especially of the liturgy and kindred subjects, and in diligence, piety, and learning was unexcelled. His collection of decrees gives evidence of most painstaking labour, and comprises all the decrees from 1602. Three further volumes were published in 1816, and a sixth volume was brought out in 1819. This volume contained more recent decrees down to the date of publication, and also the Commentary on the Clementine Instruction regarding the devotion of the Forty Hours. There were a few slight errors in the complete work, and the exacting love of perfection, so characteristic of Gardellini, would not allow him to leave these errors uncorrected. Accordingly, a new and corrected edition was published in 1827, and in this edition he included certain answers given between the years 1558 and 1599. In recognition of his great services, Gardellini was appointed assessor of the Congregation of Rites. Other editions of the decrees have been issued subsequently, but the collection of Gardellini is the foundation of them all; the latest is that of Muhlbauer with the decrees in alphabetical order (1863-65; with five supplementary volumes, 1876-87). The latest edition of the "Decreta Authentica" of the Congregation of Rites was published in 1898.

DAVID DUNFORD

Julius Peter Garesché

Soldier; born 26 April, 1821, near Havana, Cuba; killed at the battle of Stone River, Tennessee, U.S.A., 31 December, 1862. He was sent to Georgetown College, Washington, in 1833, and remained there four years. There he was appointed to the U.S. Military Academy, at West Point, and graduated with the class of 1841, receiving his commission as a second-lieutenant in the Fourth Artillery. The five subsequent years were spent on the frontier and in garrison duty. During the Mexican War he served with distinction, and was appointed assistant adjutant-general, with the rank of captain in 1855. Wherever he was stationed, Garesché always took an active part in the affairs of the Church. In Washington he organized the first local conference of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and during his residence at the capital acted as its president. He contributed frequently on Catholic, social and political questions, to the New York "Freeman's Journal" and "Brownson's Quarterly Review", and in September, 1851, in recognition of his services to the Church, received from Pius IX the decoration of a Knight of St. Sylvester. When the Civil War broke out, he declined a commission as brigadier-general of volunteers, and was made chief of staff, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the regular army, to General William S. Rosecranz. In this capacity he participated in the operations of the Army of the Cumberland. At the battle of Stone River, he was killed by a cannon-ball, while leading a column in a gallant attempt to regain a lost day.

LOUIS GARESCHÉ, Biography of Lieut.-Col. Julius P. Garesché (Philadelphia, 1887); SHEA, History of Georgetown College (New York, 1891); Cyclopaedia of Amer. Biog. s.v.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Jean Garet

Benedictine of the Congregation of Saint-Maur, born at Havre about 1627; died at Jumieges, 24 September, 1694. He was professed in 1647 when he was twenty years old, and lived in the Abbey of Saint-Ouen at Rouen. While there he prepared an edition of Cassiodorus which was published at Rouen in 1679. Mommsen's criticism on his edition of the "Variae", which was included in the above work, is very severe: "A work without either skill or learning Garet took Fournier's text (Paris, 1579) as a basis, and inserted alterations of his own rather than corrections." (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. antiq., XII, cxv). As a preface to his edition Garet wrote a dissertation in which he tried to prove that Cassiodorus was a Benedictine. Migne followed the Garet edition in P.L., LXIX-LXX, and it remains the most complete modern edition. Needless to say it does not contain the "Complexiones" discovered later by Maffei.

LE CERF DE LA VIÉVILLE, Bibliotheque historique et critique des auteurs de la congrégation de Saint-Maur (The Hague, 1726), 142.

PAUL LEJAY

Gargara

A titular see in the province of Asia, suffragan of Ephesus. The city appears to have been situated on Mt. Gargaron, the highest peak (1690 feet) of Mt. Ida, celebrated in Grecian mythology and the Homeric epic. It was at first inhabited by a colony from Assos, who were followed by people from Miletopolis. The grammarian Diotimes conducted a school here which was poorly attended by the uncultured inhabitants of Gargara. Three of the ancient bishops of Gargara were John, 518; Theodore, 553; and Ephrem, 878. Mt. Gargara is now known as Dikeli-Dagh, forming part of Kaz-Dagh, the ancient Ida. It has been thought that the city itself was discovered in the ruins of Akrili in the caza of Aivadjik and the sanjak of Bigha. Gargara must not be confused with the Jacobite bishopric of Gargar or Birta of Gargar, today Gerger, situated in the mountains west of the Euphrates and south of Malatia.

SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geogr. (London, 1878), I, 976-77; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ. (1740), I, 703-04; II, 1891-92; GAMS, Series Epis. Eccl. Cath., 444.

S. VAILHE

André Garin

An Oblate missionary and parish priest, born 7 May, 1822, at Côte-Saint-André, Isère, France; died at Lowell, Massachusetts, 16 February, 1895. He received his education at the lesser seminary of his native town, and entered the Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, 1 November, 1842; as he was still too young to be admitted to the priesthood he was sent to Canada, where he was ordained 25 April, 1845, by Bishop Bourget of Montreal. During a period of twelve years he devoted himself to the Indian missions of Eastern Canada, after which he occupied the post of superior successively at Plattsburg and at Buffalo.

Though his services were peculiarly valuable n his early fields of labour as he had mastered both the Montagnais and the English languages, yet an able man being needed to organize parish and mission work among the French Canadians at Lowell, Father Garin was ordered thither and in a short time his remarkable good sense, courteous manner, and kindly disposition won for him a wonderful influence over his people. During a pastorate of some twenty-five years he built costly churches and commodious school edifices; he also established several religious confraternities among his parishioners. Grateful for all he had done for them, the members of his parish erected a statue to him two years after his death.

Notices nécrologiques des Oblats de Marie Immaculée (Bar-le-Duc, 1899), VII.

A.G. MORICE

Garland

A wreath of flowers or evergreens formerly used in connection with baptismal, nuptial, and funeral rites, as well as in solemn processions. The earliest certain reference to the baptismal garland, as worn by neophytes, occurs in a seventh-century description of the Alexandrine ritual, written by the patriarch Severus, who says that, after the baptism and unction (i. e. confirmation), the priest administered Holy Communion, and crowned the newly-baptized with garlands. This custom was still observed at Alexandria in eighteenth century. A similar rite has also been inferred from a passage in the Gallican liturgy (baptizati et in Christo coronati), but more probably this expression is merely metaphorical. The bridal crown or wreath is said to be of pre-Christian Greek origin, adopted later by the Romans. Tertullian refers to it as a sign of paganism, but this prejudice was afterwards set aside, and it was in common use among Christians by the time of St. John Chrysostom. the bride and bridegroom were crowned to symbolize their victory over the temptations of the flesh. (For the continued use of garlands at the marriage ceremony during the early medieval period at Rome, see Duchesne, "Christian Worship", tr. London, 1903, 428-434.) The rite has been retained by the Greek Church, silver crowns taking the place of floral wreaths.

Funeral garlands were used in primitive times, in connection with the burial of virgins, and especially of virgin martyrs, to symbolize their victory, and by analogy they came also to be used for all martyrs. Hence they are constantly found represented in painting or sculpture, on the tombs of the early Christians. In later times a crown, consisting of a wooden hoop, with two half-circles crossing each other at right angles and covered with flowers and streaming ribbons, used to be carried before the bier of an unmarried woman, and afterwards suspended over or near to the grave. This custom was continued in England all through the middle ages and Reformation period, and it survives even now in certain remote places, especially in Devon and Cornwall. The iron hook upon which such wreaths were hung, in the seventeenth century, may still be seen in the south aisle of St. Alban's Abbey. In medieval times the clergy were wont to wear floral garlands or crowns on their heads, on the occasions of solemn processions. Stow mentions on at St. Paul's, London, when the dean and chapter "apparelled in copes and vestments, with garlands of roses on their heads, issued out at the west door" (Survey of London, ed. 1750); and in the inventories and church-wardens' accounts of many an English church, items of expenditure on similar ornaments occur. The same custom prevailed also in German, France and Italy. Martene (De Ant. Eccl. Rit., III, iv) mentions an illuminated missal belonging to a church a Melun, in which such floral garlands are pictured in a Corpus Christi procession, and the same is recorded at Angers, Laon, and elsewhere. According to Martene also, in certain places in France, a priest celebrating his first Mass was similarly decked, which custom still survives in certain parts of Germany and Bavaria. The term garland was also technically used to signify a crown of precious metal, often adorned with gems, made for the arrangement of natural or artificial flowers before the altar or sacred image at festival times.

ROCK, Church of our Fathers (London, 1849); WALCOTT, Sacred Archaeology (London, 1868); MARRIOTT in Dict. Christ. Antiq., s. v. Baptism; PLUMPTRE, ibid., s. v. Crowns for Brides; LEE, Glossary of Liturgical and Ecclesiastical Terms (London, 1877); SCANNELL (ed.) Catholic Dictionary (London, 1905), s. v. Marriage; LECLERCQ, Manuel d'Archéologie Chrétienne (Paris, 1907).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

John Garland

An English poet and grammarian, who lived in the middle of the thirteenth century. He tells us he was born in England and studied at Oxford with John of London, one of Roger Bacon's masters. He goes on to add that he was "fostered" in France and cherished that land above the land of this birth. The greater portion of his life was spent there. At one time he studied at the University of Paris, and then taught grammar and belles-lettres at Toulouse, and later at Paris. He went to Toulouse at the time of the close of the Albigensian war. Hence it was about 1229 that he composed the "Epithalamium Beatae Virginis Mariae", dedicated to Cardinal Romano Bonaventura, Cardinal-Deacon of Sant' Angelo, who, as legate, was trying to win back the people of Languedoc to the orthodox Faith. His "De triumphis Ecclesiae" belongs to this period also. It is an epic poem in distichs, celebrating the victories of the crusades, the crushing of heresy, and the glories of the Faith. In 1234 he was back in Paris and wrote his "Accentuarium", a poem in 1426 hexameter verses on the laws of accent. A little later, at Paris also, he composed his "Carmen de Ecclesia", a poem on the liturgy, dedicated to Fulk, Bishop of London (1244-59)). In it the poet laments the recent death of his fellow-countryman, Alexander of Hales, who died on 21 August, 1245. After the manner of the schoolmasters of his day, he wrote a glossary of this poem. For his own use as a tutor he wrote a "Distigium" or "Cornutus" in forty-two hexameter verses, grouped in pairs, to assist in remembering unusual Latin words or latinized Greek words; a "Dictionarius cum commento", or glossary; a compendium of grammar, in verse; an "Æquivoca", or list of homonyms, also in verse; a treatise on rhetoric with the odd title "Moral Examples" (Exempla honestae vitae); a "Commentarius curiatium", intended to explain to the children of nobles the meaning of such Latin words as might interest them; a "Poetria", or collection of examples in every style of versification.

In the "Exempla" he tells us he got his name from the Rue Garlande (now the Rue Galande), a main thoroughfare in the neighbourhood of the university where he taught. It was for his pupils in Paris that he penned the "Miracula Beatae Mariae Virginis", wherein he tells us that he worked at it in the library of Ste-Genevieve, which goes to prove that it was open to the public. It is the earliest reference to this library. Other works are attributed to John Garland, some of them erroneously, as the various poems entitled "Facetus"; "De contemptu mundi"; "Floretus"; "Cornutus novus"; a treatise on chemistry; a treatise on interest. Many of the above have never been edited. John Garland's verses are very faulty, being merely bad prose versified. The style is designedly obscure and absurdly pedantic. The sarcasms of Erasmus with reference to the pedagogical methods of medieval teachers are often supported by quotations from Garland's writings. For men of the Renaissance, he was held up as a type of the scholastic turning to literature.

On his various works and editions thereof see HAUREAU, Notices et extraits des manuscrits (1879), XXVII, ii, 1-86; LE CLERC, Histoire litteraire de la France (1847-52), XXII, 11, 77.

PAUL LEJAY

Ven. Nicholas Garlick

Priest and martyr, born at Dinting, Derbyshire, c. 1555; died at Derby, 24 July, 1588. He studied at Gloucester Hall, now Worcester College, Oxford, matriculating in 1575, but did not take a degree, perhaps because of the Oath of Supremacy thereto annexed. He next became master of the high school at Tideswell in the Peak, where he exercised such a holy influence over his pupil that three of them eventually went with him to Reims and one at least, Christopher Buxton (q.v.), became a martyr. He went to Reims in June, 1581, was ordained, and returned to England in January, 1583. After a year of labour, probably in the Midlands, he was arrested, and in 1585 sent into exile, with the knowledge that he would find no mercy if he returned. Nevertheless he was soon back at work in the same neighbourhood. He was arrested by the infanmous Topecliffe at Padley, the home of John Fitzherbert, a member of a family still surviving and still Catholic, the arrest being made through the treacher of a son of the house. Topcliffe obtained the house and lived there till he died in 1604. With Garlick was arrested another priest, Robert Ludlam, or Ludham, who had, like Garlick, been at Oxford and had engaged in teaching before his ordination in May, 1581. In Derby Gaol, a small and pestiferous prison, they found a third priest, Robert Sympson, who was of Garlick's college at Oxford. There he had taken Protestant orders, but was soon after reconciled to the Church, for which he suffered long inprisonment in York Castle. In this trial his faith had grown stronger, but having been ordained and passed through many labours, including exile, he was again in durance and in danger of his life, and this time he was wavering. Garlick and Ludlam cheered, reconciled, and comforted their fellow-captive, and all three were tried and suffered together.

KING, Life of N. Garlick (1904); CHALLONER, Missionary Priests (London, 1741), I, 203; BOASE, Oxford Register, II, ii, 59; FOLEY, Records S. J. (London, 1877-83), III, 224-29.

J.H. POLLEN

François-Xavier Garneau

A French Canadian historian, b. at Quebec, 15 June, 1809, of François-Xavier Garneau and Gertrude Amiot; d. 2 February, 1866. After a short elementary course, he studied law, having succeeded by private effort in supplying the lack of classical instruction. He held the office of city clerk from 1844 till his death. In 1845 appeared the first volume of his "Histoire du Canada", an heroic venture, considering the restoration to France after the Conquest of nearly all the civil and military archives. When, through Dr. O'Callaghan, the United States Government had secured copies of the correspondence of the French colonial governors, Garneau went to Albany to study these documents and gather materials for his future volumes, which appeared successively in 1846 and 1848, the third volume recording events as late as the Constitution of 1792. The work was favourably received by both English and French. A second edition includes the period from 1792 to the Union (1840). A third edition, 1850, had an English translation, which, however, is not reliable.

Garneau's history must be judged according to the spirit of his time. Its first pages were written shortly after the troubles of 1837 and 1838, at the dawn of the Union of the Canadas, which was the outcome and penalty of the Rebellion. The prospect was gloomy for Lower Canada, and a patriot like Garneau, however impartial, could not easily repress his feelings. More reprehensible are his opinions on certain points of doctrine, and his unjust criticism of church authority and influence. These may be explained by the nature of the books he had studied without proper guidance and the antidote of a sound philosophical training. These blemishes are not found in the last edition, revised at his request by a competent ecclesiastic. In fact, Garneau was ever a practical Catholic and died a most edifying death. The title of "national historian" rightly belongs to this pioneer in the field of Canadian history, who spent twenty-five years of patient research and patriotic devotedness on a work destined to draw the attention of Europe and the United States to the glories of his country.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Henry Garnet

(Garnett.)

English martyr, b. 1553-4; d. 1606, son of Brian Garnet, master of Nottingham School, then noted for its Catholic tendencies. He was, however, presumably a conformist until his twentieth year, when he courageously broke with all ties, retired abroad, and became a Jesuit in Rome, 11 Sept., 1575. Here he enjoyed the company of Persons, Weston, Southwell, and many others, with whom in future he was to be so closely allied, and made a brilliant university course under the celebrated professors of those days -- Bellarmine, Suarez, Clavius, etc. He subsequently taught for some time Hebrew and mathematics; a treatise on physics in his hand is still preserved at Stonyhurst, and he had the honor, whilst Clavius was sick, of fulfilling his chair. He was then summoned to England, where Father Weston was the only Jesuit out of prison, and he left Rome, 8 May, 1586, in company with Robert Southwell. Nest year Weston himself was arrested, whereupon Garnet became superior and remained in office till his death.

As an indication of his prudent management it may be mentioned, that under his care the Jesuits in the English mission increased from one to forty, and that not a single letter of complaint, it is said, was sent to headquarters against him. Though he generally lived in London, the hotbed of persecution, neither he nor any of his subordinates, who often came to see him, were captured in his lodgings, though perilous adventures were numerous. He was a prolific correspondent, and his extant letters show him to have been in sympathetic touch with Catholics all over the country. He was also a generous distributor of alms, and sent to Rome relics and curiosities, among others the letters of Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn, now in the Vatican library. He wrote a "Treatise of Christian Renunciation", and he translated, or caused to be translated, Canisius's "Catechism", to which he added interesting appendixes on "Pilgrimages", "Indulgences", etc. These books, now extremely rare, were perhaps secretly printed under his care in London. "A Treatise of Equivocation", believed to have been composed by Garnet, was edited by D. Jardine in 1851.

In 1595 and 1598, Garnet became involved in unpleasant clerical troubles. Some thirty-three English Catholics, almost all of them priests, had been shut up in Wisbech Castle. Of this number, eighteen, besides two Jesuits, Father Weston and Brother Pounde, desired in the winter of 1594-5 to separate themselves from the rest and adopt a regular collegiate life. But it was impossible to do this without appearing at least to reflect unfavorably on those who did not care for the change. Furthermore, the number of the latter was considerable, and the prison was so small that any division of chambers and tables was out of the question. The minority certainly had a right to protest, but they did so in such a rough, unruly way, that they seemed to justify the separation, which was in fact carried out with Father Garnet's approval in February, 1595. An earnest attempt to settle the differences that ensued was made in October, and although it was not immediately successful, the division was given up in November, and a reconciliation effected so warm and hearty that, had it not been for a subsequent quarrel on a different matter, the "Wisbech Stirs" might have been chiefly remembered as a felix culpa. The letters to and from Garnet over the happy settlement do him the greatest credit (Dodd-Tierney, Church History of England, III, App. pp. civ-cxvii).

The subsequent trouble, with which Garnet was also concerned, was that of the "Appellant Priests" of 1598-1602. To understand it, one must remember that Elizabeth's government had rendered the presence of a bishop in England impossible. Cardinal Allen (See Allen, William, Cardinal) had governed the missionary priests, first from Douai, then from Rome, but after his death in 1594, a new form of government had to be essayed. As is usual in missionary countries, the first beginning was made with a sacerdotal hierarchy. Prefects for the mission were appointed from clergy in Belgium, in Spain, and in Europe, while those in England were put under an archpriest, and this arrangement lasted until the presence of a Catholic Queen, Henrietta Maria, allowed of a bishop to be sent to England without seriously endangering the flock (see Bishop, William). But George Blackwell, the man selected for the post of archpriest, proved a failure, and had eventually to be deposed. On paper his qualifications seemed excellent; in practice his successes were few, his mistakes many. Difficulties arose with his clergy, over whose missionary faculties he exercised a somewhat brusque control. Hence anger, sharp letters on both sides, and two appeals to Rome. In the end, his authority was maintained and even strengthened, but his manner of government was reprehended. Part of the censure for this should perhaps fall on Garnet, with whom Blackwell sometimes took counsel. As to this a serious misunderstanding needs correction. It has been alleged that the archpriest received " secret orders to follow the advice of the superior of the Jesuits in the affairs of the clergy on all points of special importance. [The italicized words, which are erroneous or misleading, will be found in Dodd-Tiernet, III, 51; Lingard (1883), VI, 640; or Tauton, "Black Monks", London (1901), I, 250.] One of the appellant clergy wrote in still stronger terms, which merit quotation as an example of the extremes to which controversy was sometimes carried. "All Catholics must hereafter depend upon Blackwell, and he upon Garnet, and Garnet upon Persons, and Persons upon the Devil, who is the author of all rebellions, treasons, murders, disobedience and all such designments as this wicked jesuit hath hitherto contrived" ("Sparing Discoverie" 70; Watson in Law's "Jesuits and Seculars" (London, 1869), p. lxv). All that Cardinal Cajetan's "Instruction" really said was "The archpriest will take care to learn the opinion and advice of the Jesuit superiors in matters of greater importance."

Considering the difficulty of finding advisers of any sort in that time of paralyzing persecution, the obvious meaning of the words is surely perfectly honorable, and becoming both to the cardinal and to the archpriest. After they had been objected to, however, they were withdrawn by a papal brief, which added that "the Jesuits themselves thought this was necessary" under the changed circumstances.

The conclusion of Garnet's life is closely connected to the Gunpowder Plot, under which heading will be found an account of his having heard from Catesby in general terms that trouble was intended, and from Father Greenway, with Catesby's consent, the full details of the Plot, with the understanding that, if the plot were otherwise discovered, he would be at liberty to disclose the whole truth. After the plot had been discovered, and Garnet had been arrested, he thought it best in his peculiar circumstances to confess the whole truth about his knowledge, and for this he was tried and executed at the west end of Old St. Paul's, 3 May, 1606.

Garnet is thus described in the proclamation issued for his arrest --

Henry Garnet, alias Walley, alias Darcy, alias Farmer, of a middling stature, full faced, fat of body, of complexion fair, his forehead high on each side, with a little thin hair coming down upon the middest of the fore part of this head; his hair and beard griseled. Of age between fifty and three score. His beard on his cheeks close cut, and his chin very thin and somewhat short. His gait upright, and comely for a feeble man.

The execution was watched so closely that very few relics of the martyrdom were secured by Catholics, but a head of straw stained with his blood fell into the hands of a young Catholic, John Wilkerson. Some months later he showed it to a Catholic gentleman who noticed that the blood had congealed upon one of the husks in the form of a minute face, resembling, as they thought, Garnet's own portrait. The matter was much talked of, and the Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury personally conducted an examination of several witnesses, who had seen the strange phenomenon. Their evidence abundantly proves the reality of the lineaments which might be discerned in the husk. But to what extent the imagination of the onlookers (which were undoubtedly excited) contributed to the recognition of Garnet's features in particular, can hardly be decided now, for the straw, though carefully preserved by the English Jesuits at Liège, was lost during the troubles of the French revolution (L. Morris, "Life of Father John Gerard", London, 1881, 393-407).

As the Gunpowder Plot marked a new era of cruelty in the Protestant persecution of Catholics, so Protestant efforts to excuse their fault by blaming Garnet were at one time untiring, and even to the present day his case is discussed in an unfriendly spirit by non-Catholic writers (e.g. Jardine and Gardiner). On the other hand, the great Catholic theologians, who opposed King James in the matter of the Oath of Allegiance have spoken in Garnet's defense (especially Bellarmine "Apologia", XIII, xiii, 186, and Suarez, "Defensio Fidei Catholicæ". VI, ix, s. 6) -- a matter of good omen, considering the theological intricacies that beset his case. It is a matter of regret that we have as yet nothing like an authoritative pronouncement from Rome on the subject of Garnet's martyrdom. His name was indeed proposed with that of the other English Martyrs and Confessors in 1874, and his cause was then based upon the testimonies of Bellarmine and the older Catholic writers, which was the correct plea for the proof of Fama Martyrii, then to be demonstrated (see Beautification and Canonization). But these ancient authorities are not acquainted with Garnet's actual confessions which were not known or published in their time. The consequence was that, as the discussion proceeded, their evidence was found to be inconclusive, and an open verdict was returned; thus his martyrdom was held to be neither proved nor disproved. This of course led to his cause being "put off" (dilatus) for further inquiry, which involves in Rome a delay of many years.

Gerard, Contributions to a Life of Fr. H. Garnet (London, 1898 -- reprinted from The Month of that same year; see also June and July, 1901); Foley, Records (London, 1878), IV, 1-192. The formal contemporary defense was by a Cretan Jesuit, Eudoeman-Joannis, Apologia pro R. P. H. Garneto (1610), and much will be found in the Jesuit historians, Bartoli, More, etc.; Morris, Life of Father John Gerard (London, 1881). See also Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II, 392; Staton, Menology (London, 1892). See also literature under Gunpowder Plot.

J. H. POLLEN

St. Thomas Garnet

Protomartyr of St. Omer and therefore of Stonyhurst College; b. at Southwark, c. 1575; executed at Tyburn, 23 June, 1608. Richard Garnet, Thomas's father, was at Balliol College, Oxford, at the time when greater severity began to be used against Catholics, in 1569, and by his constancy gave great edification to the generation of Oxford men which was to produce Campion, Persons and so many other champions of Catholicism. Thomas attended the Horsham grammar school and was afterwards a page to one of the half-brothers of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who were, however, conformists. At the opening of St. Omer's College in 1592, Thomas was sent there. By 1595 he was considered fit for the new English theological seminary at Valladolid, and started in January, with five others, John Copley, William Worthington, John Ivreson, James Thomson, and Henry Mompesson, from Calais. They were lucky in finding, as a travelling companion, a Jesuit Father, William Baldwin, who was going to Spain in disguise under the alias Ottavio Fuscinelli, but misfortunes soon began. After severe weather in the Channel, they found themselves obliged to run for shelter to the Downs, where their vessel was searched by some of Queen Elizabeth's ships, and they were discovered hiding in the hold. They were immediately made prisoners and treated very roughly. They were sent round the Nore up to London, and were examined by Charles, second Lord Howard of Effingham, the lord admiral. After this Father Baldwin was sent to Bridewell prison, where he helped the confessor James Atkinson (q. v.) to obtain his crown. Meantime his young companions had been handed over to Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, having found that they encouraged one another, sent them one by one to different Protestant bishops or doctors. Only the youngest, Mompesson, conformed; the rest eventually escaped and returned to their colleges beyond seas after many adventures. We are not told specifically what befell young Garnet, but it seems likely that he was the youth confined to the house of Dr. Richard Edes (Dict. Nat. Biog., XVI, 364). He fell ill and was sent home under bond to return to custody at Oxford by a certain day. But his jailer not appearing in time, the boy escaped, and to avoid trouble had then to keep away even from his own father. At last he reached St-Omer again, and thence went to Valladolid, 7 March, 1596, having started on that journey no less than ten times.

After ordination in 1599, "returning to England I wandered", he says, "from place to place, to reduce souls which went astray and were in error as to the knowledge of the true Catholic Church". During the excitement caused by the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 he was arrested near Warwick, going under the name Thomas Rokewood, which he had no doubt assumed from Ambrose Rokewood of Coldham Hall, whose chaplain he then was, and who had unfortunately been implicated in the plot. Father Garnet was now imprisoned first in the Gatehouse, then in the Tower, where he was very severely handled in order to make him give evidence against Henry Garnet, his uncle, superior of the English Jesuits, who had lately admitted him into the Society. Though no connection with the conspiracy could be proved, he was kept in the Tower for seven months, at the end of which time he was suddenly put on board ship with forty-six other priests, and a royal proclamation, dated 10 July, 1606, was read to them, threatening death if they returned. They were then carried across the Channel and set ashore in Flanders.

Father Garnet now went to his old school at St-Omer, thence to Brussels to see the superior of the Jesuits, Father Baldwin, his companion in the adventures of 1595, who sent him to the English Jesuit novitiate, St. John's, Louvain, in which he was the first novice received. In September, 1607, he was sent back to England, but was arrested six weeks later by an apostate priest called Rouse. This was the time of King James's controversy with Bellarmine about the Oath of Allegiance. Garnet was offered his life if he would take it, but steadfastly refused, and was executed at Tyburn, protesting that he was "the happiest man this day alive". His relics, which were preserved at St-Omer, were lost during the French Revolution.

[ Note: In 1970, Thomas Garnet was canonized by Pope Paul VI among the Forty Martyrs of England and Wales, whose joint feast day is kept on 25 October.]

POLLEN, Protomartyr of Stonyhurst College in Stonyhurst Magazine (1889), 334-82; BLACKFAN, Annales Coll. S. Albani, Vallesoleti, ed. POLLEN (1899), 57, 84; CAMM in The Month (Aug., 1898), 164-77; YEPEZ, Persecucion de Inglaterra (Madrid, 1599), 820-30; FOLEY, Records S.J., II, 475-505.

J.H. POLLEN

Charles Garnier

Jesuit Missionary, born at Paris, 1606, of Jean G. and Anne de Garault; died 7 December, 1649. He studied classics, philosophy, and theology at the Jesuit college of Clermont, joining the order in 1624. He begged to be sent to the Canadian mission, and sailed in 1636 on the same fleet as Governor Montmagny. He was sent forthwith to the Huron country, where he was to spend the fourteen years of his heroic apostolate without once returning to Quebec. In six months he mastered the difficult language, and began a career of unceasing charity which was to be crowned by martyrdom. His zeal for the conversion of infidels brooked no hindrance nor delay. Neither distance nor weather, nor danger of death could prevent him from hastening to the stake to baptize and exhort captives of war. Filth, vermin, fetid and loathsome disease could not deter him from tending and redeeming dying sinners. His frail frame miraculously resisted the intense strain. His angelic patience amidst endless trials won him the title of "lamb" of the mission, whereof Brébeuf was styled the "lion". Several times -- first in 1637, then in 1639 with Jogues, and later with Pijart -- he strove to convert the Tobacco nation. His constancy finally overcame their obstinacy. They asked for the black robes (1646), and Garnier went to dwell with them until death. After the martyrdom of Fathers Daniel (1648), Brébeuf, and Lalemant (march 1649), he calmly awaited his turn. After decimating the Hurons, the Iroquois attacked the Tobacco nation. During the massacre of St. John's village, Garnier went about exhorting his neophytes to be faithful. Mortally wounded he dragged himself towards a dying Indian to absolve him, and received the final blow in the very act of charity (1649) on the eve of the Immaculate Conception, a dogma he had vowed to defend. His letters to his brother, a carmelite, reveal his sanctity. Ragueneau testifies to his heroic spirit of sacrifice. Parkman compares his life to that of St. Peter Claver among the blacks and styles it a voluntary martyrdom.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Jean Garnier

Church historian, patristic scholar, and moral theologian; b. at Paris, 11 Nov., 1612; d. at Bologna, 26 Nov., 1681. He entered the Society of Jesus at the age of sixteen, and, after a distinguished course of study, taught at first the humanities, then philosophy, at Clermont-Ferrand (1643-1653), and theology at Bourges (1653-1681). In 1681, he was sent to Rome on business of his order, fell ill on the way and died at Bologna. Garnier was considered one of the most learned Jesuits of his day, was well versed in Christian antiquity, and much consulted in difficult cases of conscience. In 1618, he published for the first time the "Libellus fidei", sent to the Holy See during the Pelagian controversy by Julian, Bishop of Eclanum in Apulia. Garnier added notes and an historical commentary. The Libellus also found a place in Garnier's later work on Mercator. In 1655, he wrote "Regulae fidei catholicae de gratia Dei per Jesum Christum", and published the work at Bourges. In 1673, he edited at Paris all the world of Marius Mercator (d. at Constantinople after 451). The edition contains two parts. The first gives the writings of Mercator against the Pelagians and to these Garnier adds seven dissertations: (1) "De primis auctoribus et praecipuis defensoribus haeresis quae a Pelagio nomen accepit"; (2) "De synodis habitis in causa Pelagianorum", (3) "De constitutionibus imperatorum in eadem causa 418-430"; (4) "De subscriptione in causa Pelagianorum"; (5) "De libellis fidei scriptis ab auctoribus et praecipuis defensoribus haeresis Pelagianae"; (6) "De iis quae scripta sunt a defensoribus fidei catholicae adversus haeresim Pelagianorum ante obitum S. Augustini"; (7) "De ortu et incrementis haeresis Pelagianae seu potius Caelestianae". Cardinal Noris (op. 3, 1176) considered these dissertations of great value, and says that, if he had seen them in time, he would have put aside his own writings on the subject. In the second part, Garnier gives a good historical sketch of Nestorianism from 428 to 433, then of the writings of Mercator on this heresy, and adds two treatises on the heresy and writings of Nestorius, and on the synods held in the matter between 429 and 433. Much praise is bestowed on Garnier by Iater learned writers for the great amount of historical knowledge displayed in his dissertations, but he is also severely blamed for his arbitrary arrangement of the writings of Mercator and for his criticism of the original (Tillemont, "Mémoires ecclés.", XV, 142; Cotelier, "Monum. eccl. graec." III, 602).

Garnier edited in 1675 at Paris the "Breviarum causae Nestorianorum" (composed before 566 by Liberatus, an archdeacon of Carthage), correcting many mistakes and adding notes and a dissertation on the Fifth General Council. In 1678 he wrote "Systema bibliothecae collegii Parisiensis S.J.", a work considered very valuable for those arranging the books in a library. In 1680, he edited the "Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum" from an ancient manuscript, and added three essays: (1) "De indiculo scribendae epistolae"; (2) "De ordinatione summi pontificis" (3) De usu pallii (see LIBER DIURNUS). In the second essay he treats the case of Pope Honorius, whom he considers free of guilt. In 1642, Sirmond had published in four volumes the works of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (d. 455); Garnier added an "Auctarium", which, however, was not published until 1684. It consists of five essays: (1) "De ejus vita"; (2) "De libris Theodoreti"; (3) "De fide Theodoreti"; (4) "De quinta synodo generali"; (6) "De Theodoreti et orientalium causa." In these he is rather severe on Theodoret and condemns him undeservedly. Another posthumous work of Garnier's, "Tractatus de officiis confessarii erga singula poenitentium genera", was published at Paris in 1689.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Julien Garnier

Jesuit missionary, born at Connerai, France, 6 January, 1642; d. in Quebec, 1730. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1660, and, in October, 1662, sailed for Canada. He was the first Jesuit to be ordained there, and after his ordination in 1668, he prepared himself for missionary work among the Indians. He went first to the Oneida, but in a few months changed the field of his labours to the Onondaga mission. Garaconthié, the Onondaga chief, received him with every evidence of friendship, and, at his request, rebuilt the chapel of St. Mary. So successful was his ministry among the Onondagas that, on the arrival of other missionaries in 1671, Garnier set out with Father Frémin for the Seneca country, where he found a bare handful of Christian Indians at the Gandachioragou mission. He immediately began to preach and baptize, and persevered in his work even after his chapel was destroyed by a fire which wiped out the entire village.

When trouble arose in 1683 between the French and the Senecas, Garnier went with de Lamberville to Governor de la Barre to urge compromise and moderation. He was unable, however, to dissuade the latter from his policy of repression, and de la Barre set out upon the ill-starred expedition which was to prevent priests from venturing among the northern tribes for over thirteen years. Every missionary was recalled at the outbreak of hostilities and Garnier was sent in turn to the settlements of Lorette and Caughnawaga. His adventurous spirit, naturally, chafed under the inactivity of these more tranquil labours, and when access to the Indians was made possible by the treaty of Montreal, in 1701, Father Garnier hastened back to his mission among the Senecas, where he remained until 1709, when Schuyler's expedition once more made it necessary for him to return to Canada. His departure marked the end of missionary work among the Senecas, and he passed his remaining years among the various settlements along the St. Lawrence, retiring from active life in 1728.

Both his extraordinary missionary zeal, and the length of time over which his labours extended have marked Father Garnier as the Apostle of the Senecas. His intimacy with this tribe was much more close than that of any other of the early Jesuits, and the notes and letters he has left still remain one of the principal and most accurate sources of information on this division of the Iroquois.

Campbell, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1908); Jesuit Relations; Handbook of American Ethnology (Washington, 1907).

STANLEY J. QUINN

Raffaele Garrucci

A historian of Christian art, b. at Naples, 22 January, 1812; d. at Rome, 5 May, 1885. He belonged to a wealthy family, entered the Society of Jesus at the age of fifteen and was professed on 19 March, 1853. He devoted himself to the study of the Christian Fathers, also to profane and Christian antiquities; both he and the celebrated De Rossi became the principal disciples of Father Marchi. On his many journeys through Italy, France, Germany, and Spain, he collected much valuable material for his archaelogical publications. In 1854 he wrote for Father Cahier's "Mélanges d'Archéologie" a study on Phrygian syncretism. Soon after he edited the notes of Jean L' Heureux on the Roman catacombs (in manuscript since 1605); later an essay on the gilded glasses of the catacombs (1858), and another on the Jewish cemetery at the Villa Randanini. In 1872 he began the publication of a monumental history of early Christian antiquities, entitled "Storia dell' arte cristiana". It was destined to include all works of sculpture, painting, and the minor and industrial arts, during the first eight centuries of the Christian Era. It is, in fact, a general history of early Christian art, and contains five hundred finely engraved plates and explanatory text. Five of the six volumes contain respectively, the catacomb-frescoes--and paintings from other quarters--gilded glasses, mosaics, sarcophagi, and non-sepulchral sculptures. The first volume is devoted to the theoretical part of the work, i.e. to a history of Christian art properly so called.

In this vast collection Garrucci re-edited to some extent materials taken from earlier works. For hitherto unedited materials he used photographs or reproductions of some other kind. His engravings are not always very accurate, and in point of finish are inferior to those obtained by more modern processes. His reproductions of catacomb-frescoes, in particular, have lost much of their value since the publication of the accurate work of Mgr. Wilpert (Pitture delle catacombe romane, Rome, 1903). on the whole, however, it must be said that the "Storia dell' arte cristiana" is yet far from being superseded by any similar work. Father Garrucci had more erudition than critical judgment; in this respect his fellow-student De Rossi was far superior to him. Hence the text of Garrucci's publications is now of doubtful authority. The list of his publications covers 118 numbers on Sommervogel, "Bibliothèque de la compagnie de Jésus" (Brussels 1902), III. Among them are the aforementioned "Storia dell' arte cristiana nei primi otto secoli delta chiesa" (6 vols. Prato 1872--81); "Dissertazioni archeologiche di vario argomento" (2 vols., Rome 1864-65); "Le monete dell' Italia antica, Raccolta generale" (Rome, 1885).

R. MAERE

Garzon

(GARZONENSIS.)

Suffragan diocese of Popayan in the Republic of Colombia. It comprises the Provinces of Neiva and Sur, and lies east of Popayan. It is about 140 miles in length, and its breadth varies from 40 to 100 miles. It extends from 1.5&$176; to 4&$176; north latitude, and lies between the 75&$176; and 77&$176; west longitude. The episcopal see is at Neiva, a town of 11,000 inhabitants, situated 150 miles s.w. of Bogota at a height of 1500 feet above sea-level, on the river Magdalena, which is navigable to this point. The diocese originally formed part of that of Tolima, which lay in the midst of the Cordilleras. As the territory was 80 extensive, the population very numerous and the difficulties of visitation too great, the bishop petitioned the Holy See to divide the diocese. This was done by a decree of Leo XIII, 20 June, 1900. The northern half was erected into a new diocese Ibagué, suffragan of Bogotá--and the southern half formed the Diocese of Carzon. Mgr. Estéban Rojas, born at Hato in the Diocese of Popayán, 15 January, 1859, had been raised to the See of Tulima, 18 March, 1895. He was transferred to Neiva as first Bishop of Garzon. the cathedral is dedicated to the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. the population, of which a large part is of mixed origin, is almost entirely Catholic. Till recent years the public autorities neglected education and threw the whole burden on the clergy, but of late government schools are being established. (See COLOMBIA, REPUBLIC OF).

A.A. MACERLEAN

Bl. Gaspare del Bufalo

Founder of the Missionaries of the most Precious Blood (C.P.P.S.); b. at Rome on the feast of the Epiphany, 1786; d. 28 December, 1837. His parents were Antonio del Bufalo, chief cook of the princely family of Altieri, and his wife Annunziata Quartieroni. Because of his delicate health, his pious mother had him confirmed at the tender age of one and a half years (1787). As he was suffering from an incurable malady of the eyes, which threatened to leave him blind, prayers were offered to St. Francis Xavier for his recovery. In 1787, he was miraculously cured, wherefore he cherished in later life a special devotion to the great Apostle of India, and selected him as the special patron of the congregation which he founded. From his earliest years he had a great horror of even venial sins and showed deep piety, a spirit of mortification, remarkable control over his evil inclinations (especially his innate irascibility and strong self-will), and also heroic love for the poor and the miserable. Having entered the Collegium Romanum at the age of twelve he received in 1800 first tonsure, and one year later the four minor orders. As catechetical instructor at St. Mark's, his zeal won for him the name "The Little Apostle of Rome", and when but nineteen years old, he was appointed president of the newly instituted catechetical school of Santa Maria del Pianto.

After his ordination (31 July, 1808), he obtained a canonry at St. Mark's, and soon instituted with Gaetano Bonani a nocturnal oratory. He assisted Francesco Albertini in founding the Archconfraternity of the Most Precious Blood, and worked with great zeal in the poorer districts of Rome, preaching frequently in the market-places. In 1810 he was summoned before General Miollis to swear allegiance to Napoleon. But neither threats nor promises could induce him to do so, because Pius VII had forbidden it. The words with which he announced his final decision have become famous: "Non posso, non debbo, non voglio" (I cannot, I ought not; I will not). In consequence he suffered banishment, and later on imprisonment in the foul dungeons of Imola and Rocca (1810-1814). After Napoleon's fall he returned to Rome, intending to enter the re-established Jesuit Order. But obeying his spiritual adviser, Albertini, he founded a congregation of secular priests to give missions and spread devotion to the Most Precious Blood. Through Cardinal Cristaldi he obtained the pope's sanction and, as a mother-house, the former convent of San Felice in Giano. Of this he took solemn possession, 11 August, 1815. The Bull of beatification says, "Through Umbria, Aemilia, Picenum, Tuscany, Campania, Samnium, in short all the provinces ot Middle Italy he wandered, giving missions". The very titles accorded to him by his contemporaries speak volumes: "II Santo", "Apostle of Rome", "Il martello dei Carbonari" (Hammer of Italian Freemasonry).

How arduous some of his missions were may be gleaned from the fact that he frequently preached five times daily, sometimes even oftener. At Sanseverino fifty priests were not sufficient to hear confessions after his sermons. Though idolized by the people, he was not without enemies. His activity in converting the "briganti", who came in crowds and laid their guns at his feet after he had preached to them in their mountain hiding-places, excited the ire of the officials who profited from brigandage through bribes and in other ways. These enemies almost Induced Leo XII to suspend del Bufalo. But after a personal conference, the pope dismissed him, remarking to his courtiers, "Del Bufalo is an angel". His enemies next tried to remove him from his post by procuring his promotion as "internuncio to Brazil". In vain, however, for his humility triumphed. A last attempt under Pius VIII (1830) met with temporary success. Del Bufalo was deprived of faculties for a short time, and his congregation threatened with extinction. But his wonderful humility again manifested itself, and, though himself misjudged and his life-work menaced by the very authority that should have supported him, he showed no signs of resentment, forgave his enenies, and excused his unmerited condemnation. The storm soon passed, Gaspare was restored to honour, and resumed his work with renewed zeal. In 1836 his strength began to fail. Although fatally ill, he hastened to Rome, where the cholera was raging, to administer to the spiritual wants of the plague-stricken. It proved too much for him, and he succumbed in the midst of his labours on 28 Dec., 1837. He was beatified by Pius X on 29 Aug., 1904.

ULRICH F. MUELLER

Philippe-Aubert de Gaspe

A French Canadian writer, b. at Quebec, 30 Oct., 1786, of a family ennobled by Louis XIV in 1693, d. 29 Jan., 1871. His grandfather fought under Montcalm at Carillon (Ticonderoga). He studied at Quebec Seminary and after a brief practice of the law, was appointed sheriff. Forced by misfortune to retire to his ancestral home at Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, on the St. Lawrence, he there spent thirty years in study. At the ripe age of seventy-five, he produced a work, "Les Anciens Canadiens" (Quebec, 1861), which is a household word throughout Canada. This historical novel, almost entirely based on fact, illustrates Canadian national tradition, character, and manners. The author has interwoven the events of his own chequered life with the tragic tale of the struggles and fall of New France, and of the change of regime, the eyewitnesses of which he had personally known. In 1866, Gaspe published his "Mémoires", which continue and amplify the precious historical notes contained in his other works. Less brilliant and attractive than his novel, the "Mémoires" are an excellent specimen of anecdotal history. The author's standing and experience, the latter embracing directly or indirectly the space of a century dating from the Conquest, constitute him an authentic chronicler of an obscure yet eventful period of history.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Pierre Gassendi

(GASSENDY, GASSEND.)

A French philosopher and scientist; b. at Champtercier, a country place near Digne in Provence, 22 January, 1592 (tombstone says IX cal. Feb., i.e. 24 Jan.); d. at Paris, 24 October, 1655. He studied Latin and rhetoric at Digne, and philosophy at Aix, whence his father, Antoine called him back to take charge of domestic affairs. However he was appointed to succeed his former teacher of rhetoric at Digne at the age of 16, and his teacher of philosophy at Aix at the age of 19. His friends and patrons at Aix, Prior Gautier and Councillor Peiresc, recognized his character and talents from his first publication and helped him to enter the ecclesiastical state. He became doctor of theology at Aix and attained proficiency in Greek and Hebrew literature. To allow him leisure for his studies, he was appointed a canon (c. 1623) and provost (c. 1625) at the cathedral of Digne. Until 1645, his studies were interrupted only by a journey to the Netherlands in 1628 --his only trip outside of France. In 1645, on the recommendation of Cardinal Richelieu, he was appointed by the king to a professorship of mathematics at the College Royal of France, which he reluctantly accepted, being granted the rare privilege of returning to his native soil whenever his health required it. On 23 November, he delivered his inaugural address in presence of the cardinal. His lectures before a numerous and learned audience were astronomical rather than mathematical, and resulted, two years later, in the publication of "Institutio Astronomica". Meanwhile an inflammation of the lungs had obliged him to return to Provence. In 1653, he went back to Paris and was received in a friendly manner at the Chateau de Monmort, where a year later he fell seriously ill with intermittent fever. He was bled nine times, and, although he declared himself too weak for another bleeding, he submitted to the decision of the doctors in Paris. He underwent the same operation five times more, after which his speech became mere whispering, and he expired quietly at the age of 63.

Gassendi, "the Bacon of France", is specially note-worthy for his opposition to the Aristotelean philosophy, and for his revival of the Epicurean system. He wished the aprioristic methods then prevailing in the schools replaced by experimental proofs. His cosmology, psychology, and ethics are epicurean, except that he maintains the doctrine of the Creator and of Providence, and the spirituality and immortality of the soul. He thus attempts to build up a Christian philosophy upon Epicurus--an inconsistency which is attacked by non-Christian, as well as Christian philosophers. His views on the constitution of matter and his merits in regard to modern kinetic atomism are explained by Lasswitz. That Gassendi was neither "the father of materialism" nor a sceptic in the proper sense is shown by Kiefi (see Baldwin, op. cit. below). He corresponded with Hobbes, Mersenne, Christina of Sweden, and engaged in controversy with Fludd, Herbert, and Descartes.

That as an amateur astronomer, Gassendi was a persevering, attentive, and intelligent observer, is evident from his notebook carefully kept from 1618 until 1652 and filling over 400 pages. With a Galilean telescope he observed the transit of Mercury in 1631, predicted by Kepler, by projecting the sun's image on a screen of paper. His instrument was not strong enough, however, to disclose the occultations and transits of Jupiter's satellites, or the true shape of Saturn's ring. The results of his astronomical work are analysed in Delambre's "Histoire de l'Astronomie Moderne" (Paris, 1821, II). Other works of minor importance refer to biographies, physics, and anatomy. Gassendi was in correspondence with Cassini, Galilei, Hevel, Kepler, Scheiner, Vallis, and other scientists. As to the Copernican system, he maintained that it rested on probabilities, but was not demonstrated, although he ably refuted all objections against it. To those whose conscience forbade them to accept Copernicanism, he said that the Tychonian system recommended itself as the most probable of all (Op. V, De Rebus Caelestibus, V).

In character, Gassendi was retiring and umpretentious. With friends, he would give way to a humorous and ironical vein; in controversy, he observed the Socratic method. On Sundays and feast days he never omitted celebrating Mass; and when in Paris, he went to the church of his friend, Père Mersenne. In his last illness he asked for the Viaticum three times and for extreme unction, and his aspirations were words from the Psalms. Gassendi was esteemed by all, and loved by the poor for whom he provided in lifetime and in his last will. He founded two anniversary Masses for himself, one to be said in the cathedral of Digne, and one in the chapel of his friend, Monmort, at St-Nicolas-des-champs, Paris, where he was buried. The accompanying picture represents his marble bust in that mausoleum. The assertion that he was a Minorite is without foundation.

Gassendi's "Opera Omnia" were edited in 6 vols., Lyons, 1658, and Florence, 1727.

J.G. HAGEN

Joseph Gasser von Valhorn

An Austrian sculptor, b. 22 Nov., 1816 at Prägraten, Tyrol; d. 28 Oct., 1900. He was first instructed by his father, a wood-carver, and later studied at the Academy, Vienna. In 1846 he went to Rome, where a government stipend enabled him to remain several years. On his return he settled in Vienna (1852), and executed five heroic figures for the portal of the cathedral at Speyer: Our Lady, the Archangel St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, St. Stephen and St. Bernard of Clairvaux, completed in 1856. Also in Speyer he carved seven reliefs for the Kaiserhalle. The marble statue of Rudolph IV on the Elizabeth bridge over the Danube Canal, Vienna, is by him. Other works are the statues of Maximilian I, Frederick the Warlike, and Leopold of Hapsburg for the Museum of the Arsenal; the marble statues of the Seven Liberal Arts in the staircase of the Opera House; twenty-four figures for the Cathedral of St. Stephen; the relief of Duke Rudolph the Founder for the New Townhall; the "Prometheus" and the "Genevieve" for the Court Theatre; a number of statues for the Altlerchenfelder Church; busts of Herodotus and Aristarchus for the university; and portraits of Maximilian of Mexico and of his wife the Empress Charlotte. He also made a bust of the Emperor Francis Joseph for the Hotel de Ville, Paris, and sculptures for the new cathedral, Linz. Most important among his works are the subjects for the Votive Church, Vienna, modelled around the year 1873: the Coronation of Mary, the group of the Trinity, a figure of Christ the Redeemer, statues for the high and side altars, nine angels, and the tympan reliefs tor the three main portals. Glasser was professor at the Academy from 1865 to 1873, and was inscribed among the nobility in 1879. In spite of his long life, and much good work, he had but small influence on the development of modern sculpture in Austria.

M.L. HANDLEY

Johann Joseph Gassner

A celebrated exorcist; b. 22 Aug., 1727, at Braz, Vorarlberg, Austria; d. 4 April, 1779, at Pondorf, on the Danube (Diocese of Ratisbon); studied at Prague and Innsbruck; ordained priest, 1750, and after serving various missions, became parish priest and dean of Pondorf May, 1776. A few years after his appointment to Klosterle in the Diocese of Chur, Switzerland (1758), his health began to fall, so that he was scarcely able to fulfil the duties of his ministry; he consulted various physicians in vain; suddenly he conceived the idea that his infirmities might be due to the influence of the evil spirit and might be cured by spiritual means. His experiment was successful. He applied this method also to others and soon thousands came to him to be healed. The fame of these cures spread far and wide; he was invited to the Diocese of Constance, to Ellwangen, Ratisbon, and other places; everywhere he had the same success.

He was convinced that the evil spirit could harm the body as well as the soul; and hence that some infirmities were not the result of natural agencies, but were caused by the Devil. Only cases of the latter kind were taken up; he applied the exorcisms of the Church, and commanded the evil one to depart from the afflicted, in the name of the Lord Jesus. To find out whether the disease was caused naturally or not, he applied the "probative exorcism", i.e. he commanded the spirit to indicate by some sign has presence in the body. And only then he made use of the "expulsive exorcism". His proceedings were not secret; anyone of good standing, Catholic or Protestant, was admitted. People of all classes, nobles, ecclesiastics, physicians, and others often gathered around him to see the marvels they had heard of. Official records were made, competent witnesses testified to the extraordinary happenings. The character of the work made many enemies for him, but also many stanch friends and supporters. One of his bitterest opponents was the rationalistic professor Johannes Semler of Halle. Also the physician Mesmer pretended that the cures were performed by the animal magnetism of his invention, but he was afraid of confronting Gassner. Among his friends were the Calvinistic minister, Lavater of Zurich, and especially Count Fugger, the Prince-Bishhop of Ratisbon.

Official investigations were made by the ecclesiastical authorities; and all were favourable to Gassner, except that they recommended more privacy and decorum. The University of Ingolstadt appointed a commission, and so did the Imperial Government; they ended with the approval of Gassner's procedure. In fact, he never departed from the Church's teaching or instructions concerning exorcism, and always disclaimed the name of wonder-worker. He was an exemplary priest, full of faith and zeal, and altogether unselfish in his works of mercy.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

William Gaston

Jurist: b. at Newbern, North Carolina, U.S.A., 19 Sept., 1778: d. at Raleigh, North Carolina, 28 January 1844. His father, Dr. Alexander Gaston, a Presbyterian native of Ireland, formerly a surgeon in the British Navy, was killed at Newbern by British soldiers during the Revolution, and his education devolved on his mother Margaret Sharpe, a Catholic Englishwoman. She sent him to Georgetown College in 1791, his name being the name being inscribed on the roll of the students of that institution. After staying there four years he entered Princeton College, New Jersey, where he graduated with first honours in 1796. He then studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1798. In August, 1800, Gaston was elected to the Senate of his native state, although its constitution at the time contained a clause excluding Catholics from office. Elected to Congress in 1813 and 1815, his career in Washington was active and brilliant, as one of the influential leaders of Federal party. Resuming the practice of law, he was elevated in 1833 to the bench of the supreme Court of North Carolina, an office which he held for the remainder of his life. In the convention of 1835 he was mainly instrumental in securing the repeal of the article of the North Carolina State Constitution that practically disfranchised Catholics. He was one of the most intimate friends of Bishop England, and his splendid gifts of intellect were always devoted to the promotion of the Faith and the welfare of his fellow Catholics.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Gatianus

Founder and bishop of Tours; b. probably at Rome; d. at Tours, 20 December, 301. He came to Gaul during the consulate of Decius and Gratus (250 or 251), devoted half a century to the evangelization of the third Lyonnaise province amid innumerable difficulties, which the pagans raise against him. But he overcame all obstacles, and at his death the Church of Tours was securely established. The "traditional school", relying on legends that have hitherto not been traced back beyond the twelfth century, have claimed that St. Gatianus was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, and was sent into Gaul during the first century by St. Peter himself. This assertion, which has been refuted by learned and devout writers, is untenable in the face of the testimony of Gregory of Tours. To this bishop, who lived in the sixth century, we are indebted for the only details we possess concerning his holy predecessor.

LÉON CLUGNET

Franz Christian Gau

Architect and archæologist, b. at Cologne, 15 June, 1790; d. at Paris, January, 1854. In 1809 he entered the Académie des Beaux-Arts, Paris, and in 1815 visited Italy and Sicily. In 1817 he went to Nubia, and while there he made drawings and measurements of all the more important monuments of that country, his ambition being to produce a work which should supplement the great work of the French expedition in Egypt. The result of his labours appeared in a folio volume (Stuttgart and Paris, 1822), entitled "Antiquitiés de la Nubie ou monuments inédits des bords du Nil, situés entre la premiére et la seconde cataracte, dessinés et mesurés in 1819". It consists of sixty-eight plates, of plans, sections, and views, and has been received as an authority. His next publication was the completion of Mazois's work on the ruins of Pompeii. In 1825 Gau was naturalized as a French citizen, and later became architect to the city of Paris. He directed the restoration of the churches of Sain-Julien-le-Pauvre, and Saint-Séverin, and built the great prison of La Roquette, etc. With his name also is associated the revival of Gothic architecture in Paris — he having designed and commenced, in 1846, the erection of the church of Sainte-Clotilde, the first modern church erected in the capital in that style. Illness compelled him to relinquish the care of supervising the work, and he died before its completion.

Imperial Dict. Univ. Biog., s.v.; Michaud, Biog. Univ., s.v.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Antoine Gaubil

A French Jesuit and missionary to China, b. at Gaillac (Aveyron), 14 July, 1689; d. at Peking, 24 July, 1759. He entered the Society of Jesus, 13 Sept., 1704, was sent to China, where he arrived 26 June, 1722, and thenceforth resided continuously at Peking until his death. His Chinese name was Sun Kiun-yung. He had taken Parennin's place as head of the school in which Manchus were taught Latin, to act as interpreters in Russian affairs. Gaubil, the best astronomer and historian among the French Jesuits in China during the eighteenth century, carried on an extensive correspondence with the savants of his day, among them Féret and Delisle. His works are numerous, and are even yet highly praised. Among them is "Traité de l'Astronomie Chinoise" in the "Observations mathématiques", published by Pére Souciet (Paris, 1729-1732). From Chinese sources Gaubil translated the history of Jenghis Khan (Historie de Gentchiscan (Paris, 1739) and part of the annals of the T'ang Dynasty (in "Mémoires concernant les Chinois". vols. XV and XVI); he also wrote a treaty on Chinese chronology (Traité de la Chronologie Chenoise, Paris, 1814), and executed a good translation of the second of the Chinese classics, the "Book of History" (Shoo-king), edited by De Guignes (Paris, 1770).

Gaubil left a great number of manuscripts now kept in the Observatory and Naval Depot (Paris) and in the British Museum (London). From three manuscript volumes kept formerly at the Ecole Sainte-Geneviève (Paris) the present writer published "Situation de Holin en Tartarie" (T'oung Pao, March, 1893) and "Situation du Japon et de la Corée" (T'oung Pao, March, 1898). Abel Rémusat in "Nouveaux Mélanges Asiatiques" (II, p. 289), wrote of Gaubil: "More productive than Parennin and Gerbillion, less systematical than Prémare and Foucquet, more conscientious than Amiot, less light-headed and enthusiastic than Cibot, he treated thoroughly, scientifically, and critically, every question he handled." His style is rather fatiguing as Gaubil, in studying the Chinese and Manchu languages, had forgotten much of his native tongue.

HENRI CORDIER

St. Gaudentius

Bishop of Brescia from about 387 until about 410; he was the successor of the writer on heresies, St. Philastrius. At the time of that saint's death Gaudentius was making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The people of Brescia bound themselves by an oath that they would accept no other bishop than Gaudentius; and St. Ambrose and other neighbouring prelates, in consequence, obliged him to return, though against his will. The Eastern bishops also threatened to refuse him Communion if he did not obey. We possess the discourse which he made before St. Ambrose and other bishops on the occasion of his consecration, in which he excuses, on the plea of obedience, his youth and his presumption in speaking. He had brought back with him from the East many precious relics of St. John Baptist and of the Apostles, and especially of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, relics of whom he had received at Caesarea in Cappadocia from nieces of St. Basil. These and other relics from Milan and elsewhere he deposited in a basilica which he named Concilium Sanctorum. His sermon on its dedication is extant. From a letter of St. Chrysostom (Ep. clxxxiv) to Gaudentius it may be gathered that the two saints had met at Antioch. When St. Chrysostom had been condemned to exile and had appealed to Pope Innocent and the West in 405, Gaudentius warmly took his part. An embassy to the Eastern Emperor Arcadius from his brother Honorius and from the pope, bearing letters frorn both and from Italian bishops, consisted of Gaudentius and two other bishops. The envoys were seized at Athens and sent to Constantinople, being three days on a ship without food. They were not admitted into the city, but were shut up in a fortress called Athyra, on the coast of Thrace. Their credentials were seized by force, so that the thumb of one of the bishops was broken, and they were offered a large sum of money if they would communicate with Atticus, who had supplanted St. Chrysostom. They were consoled by God, and St. Paul appeared to a deacon amongst them. They were eventually put on board an unseaworthy vessel, and it was said that the captain had orders to wreck them. However, they arrived safe at Lampsacus, where they took ship for Italy, and arrived in twenty days at Otranto. Their own account of their four months' adventures has been preserved to us by Palladius (Dialogus, 4). St. Chrysostom wrote them several grateful letters.

We possess twenty-one genuine tractates by Gaudentius. The first ten are a series of Easter sermons, written down after delivery at the request of Benivolus, the chief of the Brescian nobility, who had been prevented by ill health from hearing them delivered. In the preface Gaudentius takes occasion to disown all unauthorized copies of his sermons published by shorthand writers. These pirated editions seem to have been known to Rufinus, who, in the dedication to St. Gaudentius of his translation of the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions", praises the intellectual gifts of thne Bishop of Brescia, saying that even his extempore speaking is worthy of publication and of preservation by posterity. The style of Gaudentius is simple, and his matter is good. His body lies at Brescia in the Church of St. John Baptist, on the site of the Concilium Sanctorum. His figure is frequently seen in the altar-pieces of the great Brescian painters, Moretto Savoldo, and Romanino. The best edition of his works is by Galeardi (Padua, 1720, and in P.L., XX).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Gaudentius of Brescia

(GAUDENTIUS BRIXIENSIS or BONTEMPS.)

A theologian of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchins; b. at Brescia in 1612; d. at Oriano, 25 March, 1672; descended from the noble Brescian family of Bontempi; having entered the Capuchin Order, was assigned to the duties of lector of theology. In this capacity he visited the several convents of his own province of Brescia, as well as other houses of study of the different Capuchin provinces of Italy. He was taken suddenly ill at Oriano, and died there while engaged in preaching a course of Lenten sermons. His remains were later removed to the Capuchin church at Verola, where they now rest. His fame as a theologian rests mainly on his "Palladium Theologicum seu tuta theologia scholastica ad intimam mentem d. Bonaventurae Seraph. Doc. cujus eximiae doctrinae raptae restituuntur, sententiae impugnatae propugnantur", a work in which elegance of style, depth of thought, and soundness of doctrine are admirably combined, and which ranks the author among the foremost exponents of the Franciscan school. Gaudentius's pupil and countryman, Gianfrancesco Durantio, undertook the publication of the work after the death of the author; and under the patronage of Louis XIV of France, who subjected the manuscript to the examination of a special commission of doctors of the Sorbonne, it was published at Lyons, in seven folio volumes, in 1676.

STEPHEN DONOVAN

Gaudete Sunday

The third Sunday of Advent, so called from the first word of the Introit at Mass (Gaudete, i.e. Rejoice). The season of Advent originated as a fast of forty days in preparation for Christmas, commencing on the day after the feast of St. Martin (12 November), whence it was often called "St. Martin's Lent"-- a name by which it was known as early as the fifth century. The introduction of the Advent fast cannot be placed much earlier, because there is no evidence of Christmas being kept on 25 December before the end of the fourth century (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", Paris, 1889), and the preparation for the feast could not have been of earlier date than the feast itself. In the ninth century, the duration of Advent was reduced to four weeks, the first allusion to the shortened season being in a letter of St. Nicholas I (858-867) to the Bulgarians, and by the twelfth century the fast had been replaced by simple abstinence. St. Gregory the Great was the first to draw up an Office for the Advent season, and the Gregorian Sacramentary is the earliest to provide Masses for the Sundays of Advent. In both Office and Mass provision is made for five Sundays, but by the tenth century four was the usual nurnber, though some churches of France observed five as late as the thirteenth century. Notwithstanding all these modifications, however, Advent still preserved most of the characteristics of a penitential seasons which made it a kind of counterpart to Lent, the middle (or third) Sunday corresponding with Laetare or Mid-Lent Sunday. On it, as on Laetare Sunday, the organ and flowers, forbidden during the rest of the season, were, permitted to be used; rose-coloured vestments were allowed instead of purple (or black, as formerly); the decon and subdeacon reassumed the dalmatic and tunicle at the chief Mass, and cardinals wore rose- colour instead of purple. All these distinguishing marks have continued in use, and are the present discipline of the Latin Church. Gaudete Sunday, therefore, makes a breaker like Laetare Sunday, about midway through a season which is otherwise of a penitential character, and signifies the nearness of the Lord's coming. Of the "stations" kept in Rome the four Sundays of Advent, that at the Vatican basilica is assigned to Gaudete, as being the most important and imposing of the four. In both Office and Mass throughout Advent continual reference is made to our Lord's second coming, and this is emphasized on the third Sunday by the additional signs of gladness permitted on that day. Gaudete Sunday is further marked by a new Invitatory, the Church no longer inviting the faithful to adore merely "The Lord who is to come", but calling upon them to worship and hail with joy "The Lord who is now nigh and close at hand". The Nocturn lessons from the Prophecy of Isaias describe the Lord's coming and the blessings that will result from it, and the antiphons at Vespers re-echo the prophetic promises. The joy of expectation is emphasized by the constant Alleluias, which occur in both Office and Mass throughout the entire season. In the Mass, the Introit "Gaudete in Domino temper" strikes the same note, and gives its name to the day. The Epistle again incites us to rejoicing, and bids us prepare to meet the coming Saviour with prayers and supplication and thanksgiving, whilst the Gospel, the words of St. John Baptist, warns us that the Lamb of God is even now in our midst, though we appear to know Him not. The spirit of the Oflice and Liturgy all through Advent is one of expectation and preparation for the Christmas feast as well as for the second coming of Christ, and the penitential exercises suitable to that spirit are thus on Gaudete Sunday suspended, as were, for a while in order to symbolize that joy and gladness in the Promised Redemption which should never be absent from the heart of the faithful.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Antoine de Gaudier

A writer on asectic theology; b. at Château-Thierry, France, 7 January, 1572; d. at Paris, 14 April, 1622. About the age of twenty he entered the Society of Jesus at Tournay. Later on he was rector at Liège, professor of Holy Scripture at Pont-à-Mousson, and of moral theology at La Flèche. In these two last-named posts he was also charged with the spiritual direction of his brethren, and showed such an aptitude for this branch of the ministry that he was named master of novices and tertians. His appointment to these offices shows that Gaudier, since he died at the age of fifty must have evinced an early intellectual maturity and an exceptional talent for the guidance of souls. In the discharge of his various functions, he found an opportunity of developing before a domestic audience the principal matter of asceticism, which he elaborated little by little into a complete treatise. The eagerness shown to possess his spiritual writings led him at last to publish them. There then appeared successively in Latin; "De Sanctissimo Christi Jesu amore opusculum" (Pont-à-Mousson, 1619), translated into English by G. Tickell, S.J. ("The Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ", Derby, 1864); "De verâ Christi Jesu imitatione"; "De Dei praesentiâ"; "Praxis meditandi a B.P. Ignatio traditae explicatio" (Paris, 1620). There are French translations of these four works. After the death of Father Gaudier all his spiritual works, both printed and unedited, were collected in one folio volume under the title "De naturâ et statibus perfectionis" (Paris, 1643), a better edition in three octavo volumes being later supplied by Father J. Martinow, S.J. (Paris, 1856-8). While this great treatise is of special interest to Jesuits, since it is primarily intended for their instiute, it is regarded by enlightened judges as one of the most beautiful and solid monuments of Catholic asceticism. The whole of the speculative part is of general interest, and the practical part, with the exception of rare passages, is equally so. It contains a thirty days' retreat according to the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, which has been separately edited several times since 1643. The great value of the work is heightened by the fact that Gaudier had personal intercourse with the immediate disciples of the saint.

PAUL DEBUCHY

Gaudiosus

Bishop of Tarazona (Turiasso), Spain; died about 540. Our information concerning the life of this holy bishop is scant, and rests on comparatively late sources. On the occasion of the translation of his remains in 1573, a sketch of his life was discovered in the grave, written on parchment; apart from the Breviary lessons of the Church of Tarazona, this document contains the only written details we possess concerning the life of Gaudiosus. His father, Guntha, was a military official (spatharius) at the court of the Visigothic King Theodoric (510-25). The education of the boy was entrusted to St. Victorianus, abbot of a monastery near Burgos (Oca), who trained him for the service of the Church. Later (c. 530) he was apoointed Bishop of Tarazona. Nothing more is known of his activities. Even the year of his death has not been exactly determined. After his death he was venerated as a saint. According to the manuscript life found in his grave he died on 29 October, but the Church of Tarazona celebrates his feast on 3 November. He was first entombed in the church of St. Martin (dedicated later to St. Victorianus), attached to the monastery where he had spent his youthful years. In 1573 his remains were disinterred and translated to the cathedral of Tarazona.

Acta SS., I, Nov., 664-65; DE LA FUENTE, La Santa Iglesia de Tarazona en sus Estados Antiguos y Modernos (Madrid, 1865).

J.P. KIRSCH

Christian Gaul

The Church of Gaul first appeared in history in connexion with the persecution at Lyons under Marcus Aurelius (177). The pagan inhabitants rose up against the Christians, and forty-eight martyrs suffered death under various tortures. Among them there were children like the slave Blandina and Ponticus, a youth of fifteen. Every rank of life had members among the first martyrs of the Church of Gaul: the aristocracy were represented by Vettius Epagathus; the professional class by Attalus of Pergamus, a physician; a neophyte Maturus, died beside Pothinus, Bishop of Lyons, and Sanctus, deacon of Vienne. The Christians of Lyons and Vienne in a letter to their brethren of Smyrna give an account of this persecution, and the letter preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, i-iv), is one the gems of Christian literature. In this document the Church of Lyons seems to be the only church organized at the time in Gaul. That of Vienne appears to have been dependent on it and, to judge from similar cases, was probably administered by a deacon. How or where Christianity first gained a foothold in Gaul is purely a matter of conjecture. Most likely the first missionaries came by sea, touched at Marseilles, and progressed up the Rhone till they established the religion at Lyons, the metropolis and centre of communication for the whole country. The firm establishment of Christianity in Gaul was undoubtedly due to missionaries from Asia. Pothinus was a disciple of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, as was also his successor, Irenaeus. In the time of Irenaeus, Lyons was still the centre of the Church in Gaul. Eusebius speaks of letters written by the Churches of Gaul of which Irenaeus is bishop (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii). These letters were written on the occasion of the second event which brought the Church of Gaul into prominence. Easter was not celebrated on the same day in all Christian communities; towards the end of the second century Pope Victor wished to universalize the Roman usage and excommunicated the Churches of Asia. Irenaeus intervened to restore peace. About the same time, in a mystical inscription found at Autun, a certain Pectorius celebrated in Greek verse the Ichthus or fish, symbol of the Eucharist. A third event in which the bishops of Gaul appear is the Novatian controversy. Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, and other colleagues in Gaul are mentioned in 254 by St. Cyprian (Ep. lxviii) as opposed to Novatian, whereas Marcianus of Axles was favourable to him.

No other positive information concerning the Church of Gaul is available until the fourth century. Two groups of narratives, however, aim to fill in the gaps. On the one hand a series of local legends trace back the foundation of the principal sees to the Apostles. Early in the sixth century we find St. Caesarius Bishop of Arles, crediting these stories; regardless of the anachronism, he makes the first Bishop of Vaison, Daphnus, whose signature appears at the Council of Arles (314), a disciple of the Apostles (Lejay, Le rôle théologique de Césaire d'Arles, p. 5). One hundred years earlier one of his predecessors, Patrocles, based various claims of his Church on the fact that St. Trophimus, founder of the Church of Arles, was a disciple of the Apostles. Such claims were no doubt flattering to local vanity; during the Middle Ages and in more recent times many legends grew up in support of them. The evangelization of Gaul has often been attributed to missionaries sent from Rome by St. Clement--a theory, which has inspired a whole series of fallacious narratives and forgeries, with which history is encumbered. More faith can be placed in a statement of Gregory of Tours in his "Historia Francorum" (I, xxviii), on which was based the second group of narratives concerning the evangelisation of Gaul. According to him, in the year 250 Rome sent seven bishops, who founded as many churches in Gaul: Gatianus the Church of Tours, Trophimus that of Arles, Paul that of Narbonne, Saturninus that of Toulouse, Denis that of Paris, Stremonius (Austremonius) that of Auvergne (Clermont), and Martialis that of Limoges. Gregory's statement has been accepted with more or less reservation by serious historians. Nevertheless even though Gregory, a late successor of Gatianus, may have had access to information on the beginnings of his church, it must not be forgotten that an interval of three hundred years separates him from the events he chronicles; moreover, this statement of his involves some serious chronological difficulties, of which he was himself aware, e. g. in the case of the bishops of Paris. The most we can say for him is that he echoes a contemporary tradition, which represents the general point of view of the sixth century rather than the actual facts. It is impossible to say how much legend is mingled with the reality.

By the middle of the third century, as St. Cyprian bears witness, there were several churches organized in Gaul. They suffered little from the great persecution. Constantius Chlorus, the father of Constantine, was not hostile to Christianity, and soon after the cessation of persecution the bishops of the Latin world assembled at Arles (314). Their signatures, which are still extant, prove that the following sees were then in existence: Vienne, Marseilles, Arles, Orange, Vaison, Apt, Nice, Lyons, Autun, Cologne, Trier, Reims, Rouen, Bordeaux, Gabali, and Eauze. We must also admit the existence of the Sees of Toulouse, Narbonne, Clermont, Bourges, and Paris. This date marks the beginning of a new era m the history of the Church of Gaul. The towns had been early won over to the new Faith; the work of evangelization was now extended and continued during the fourth and fifth centuries. The cultured classes, however, long remained faithful to the old traditions. Ausonius was a Christian, but gives so little evidence of it that the fact has been questioned. Teacher and humanist, he lived in the memories of the past. His pupil Paulinus entered the religious life, at which, however, the world of letters was deeply scandalized; so much so, indeed, that Paulinus had to write to Ausonius to justify himself. At the same period there were pagan rhetoricians who celebrated in the schools, as at Autun, the virtues and deeds of the Christian emperors. By the close of the fifth century, however, the majority of scholars in Gaul were Christians. Generation by generation the change came about. Salvianus, the fiery apologist (died c. 492), was the son of pagan parents. Hilary of Poitiers, Sulpicius Severus (the Christian Sallust), Paulinus of Nola, and Sidonius Apollinaris strove to reconcile the Church and the world of letters. Sidonius himself is not altogether free from suggestions of paganism handed down by tradition. In Gaul as elsewhere the question arose as to whether the Gospel could really adapt itself to literary culture. With the inroads of the barbarians the discussion came to an end.

It is none the less true that throughout the Empire the progress of Christianity had been made chiefly in the cities. The country-places were yet strongholds of idolatry, which in Gaul was upheld by a twofold tradition. The old Gallic religion, and Graeco-Roman paganism, still had ardent supporters. More than that, among the Gallo-Roman population the use of spells and charms for the cure of sickness, or on the occasion of a death, was much in vogue; the people worshipped springs and trees, believed in fairies, on certain days clothed themselves in skins of animals, and resorted to magic and the practice of divination. Some of these customs were survivals of very ancient traditions; they had come down through the Celtic and the Roman period, and had no doubt at times received the imprint of the Gallic and Graeco-Roman beliefs. Their real origin must of course, be sought further back in the same obscurity in which the beginnings of folk-lore are shrouded. This mass of popular beliefs, fancies, and superstitions still lives. It was the principal obstacle encountered by the missionaries in the rural places. St. Martin, a native of Pannonia, Bishop of Tours, and founder of monasteries, undertook especially in Central Gaul a crusade against this rural idolatry. On one occasion, when he was felling a sacred tree in the neighbourhood of Autun, a peasant attacked him, and he had an almost miraculous escape. Besides St. Martin other popular preachers traversed the rural districts, e.g. Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, another converted soldier, also Martin's disciples, especially St. Martin of Brives. But their scattered and intermittent efforts made no lasting effect on the minds of the peasants. About 395 a Gallic rhetorician depicts a scene in which peasants discuss the mortality among their flocks. One of them boasts the virtue of the sign of the cross, "the sign of that God Who alone is worshipped in the large cities" (Riese, Anthologia Latina, no. 893, v. 105). This expression, however, is too strong, for at that very period a single church sufficed for the Christian population of Trier. Nevertheless the rural parts continued the more refractory. At the beginning of the fifth century, there took place in the neighbourhood of Autun the procession of Cybele's chariot to bless the harvest. In the sixth century, in the city of Arles, one of the regions where Christianity had gained its earliest and strongest foothold, Bishop Caesarius was still struggling against popular superstitions, and some of his sermons are yet among our important sources of information on folk-lore.

The Christianization of the lower classes of the people was greatly aided by the newly established monasteries. In Gaul as elsewhere the first Christian ascetics lived in the world and kept their personal freedom. The practice of religious life in common was introduced by St. Martin (died c. 397) and Cassian (died c. 435). Martin established near Tours the "grand monastère", i.e. Marmoutier, where in the beginning the monks lived in separate grottoes or wooden huts. A little later Cassian founded two monasteries at Marseilles (415). He had previously visited the monks of the East, and especially Egypt, and had brought back their methods, which he adapted to the circumstances of Gallo-Roman life. Through two of his works "De institutis coenobiorum" and the "Collationes XXIV", he became the doctor of Gallic asceticism. About the same time Honoratus founded a famous monastery on the little isle of Lérins (Lerinum) near Marseilles destined to become a centre of Christian life and ecclesiastical influence. Episcopal sees of Gaul were often objects of competition and greed, and were rapidly becoming the property of certain aristocratic families, all of whose representatives in the episcopate were not as wise and upright as Germanus of Auxerre or Sidonius Apollinaris. Lérins took up the work of reforming the episcopate, and placed many of its own sons at the head of dioceses: Honoratus, Hilary, and Caesarius at Arles; Eucherius at Lyons, and his sons Salonius and Veranius at Geneva and Vence respectively; Lupus at Troyes; Maximus and Faustus at Riez. Lérins too became a school of mysticism and theology and spread its religious ideas far and wide by useful works on dogma, polemics, and hagiography. Other monasteries were founded in Gaul, e.g. Grigny near Vienne, Ile Barbe at Lyons, Réomé (later known as Moutier-Saint-Jean), Morvan, Saint-Claude in the Jura, Chinon, Loches etc. It is possible, however, that some of these foundations belong to the succeeding period. The monks had not yet begun to live according to any fixed and codified rule. For such written constitutions we must await the time of Caesarius of Arles. Monasticism was not established without opposition. Rutilius Namatianus, a pagan, denounced the monks of Lérins as a brood of night-owls; even the effort to make chastity the central virtue of Christianity met with much resistance, and the adversaries of Priscillian in particular were imbued with this hostility to a certain degree. It was also one of the objections raised by Vigilantius of Calagurris, the Spanish priest whom St. Jerome denounced so vigorously. Vigilantius had spent much time in Gaul and seems to have died there. The law of ecclesiastical celibacy was less stringent, less generally enforced than in Italy, especially Rome. The series of Gallic councils before the Merovingian epoch bear witness at once to the undecided state of discipline at the time, and also to the continual striving after some fixed disciplinary code.

The Church of Gaul passed through three dogmatic crises. Its bishops seem to have been greatly preoccupied with Arianism; as a rule they clung to the teaching of Nicaea, in spite of a few temporary or partial defections. Athanasius, who had been exiled to Trier (336-38), exerted a powerful influence on the episcopate of Gaul; one of the great champions of orthodoxy in the West was Hilary of Poitiers, who also suffered exile for his constancy. Priscillianism had a greater hold on the masses of the faithful. It was above all a method, an ideal of Christian life, which appealed to all, even to women. It was condemned (380) at the Synod of Saragossa where the Bishops of Bordeaux and Agen were present; none the less it spread rapidly in Central Gaul, Eauze in particular being a stronghold. When in 385 the usurper Maximus put Priscillian and his friends to death, St. Martin was in doubt how to act, but repudiated with horror communion with the bishops who had condemned the unfortunates. Priscillianism, indeed, was more or less bound up with the cause of asceticism in general. Finally the bishops and monks of Gaul were long divided over Pelagianism. Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, had obliged Leporius, a disciple of Pelagius, to leave Gaul, but it was not long until Marseilles and Lérins, led by Cassian, Vincent and Faustus, became hotbeds of a teaching opposed to St. Augustine's and known as Semipelagianism. Prosper of Aquitaine wrote against it, and was obliged to take refuge at Rome. It was not until the beginning of the sixth century that the teaching of Augustine triumphed, when a monk of Lérins, Caesarius of Arles, an almost servile disciple of Augustine, caused it to be adopted by the Council of Orange (529).

In the final struggle Rome interfered. We do not know much concerning the earlier relations between the bishops of Gaul and the pope. The position of Irenaeus in the Easter Controversy shows a considerable degree of independence; yet Irenaeus proclaimed the primacy of the See of Rome. About the middle of the third century the pope was appealed to for the purpose of settling difficulties in the Church of Gaul and to remove an erring bishop (Cyprian, Epist. lxviii). At the Council of Arles (314) the bishops of Gaul were present with those of Brittany, Spain, Africa, even Italy; Pope Sylvester sent delegates to represent him. It was in a way a Council of the West. During all that century, however, the episcopate of Gaul had no head, and the bishops grouped themselves according to the ties of friendship or locality. Metropolitans did not exist as yet, and when advice was needed Milan was consulted. "The traditional authority", says Duchesne, "in all matters of discipline remained always the ancient Church of Rome; in practice, however, the Council of Milan decided in case of conflict." The popes then took the situation in hand, and in 417 Pope Zosimus made Patrocles, Bishop of Aries, his vicar or delegate in Gaul, and provided that all disputes should be referred to him. Moreover, no Gallic ecclesiastic could have access to the pope without testimonial letters from the Bishop of Aries. This primacy of Aries waxed and waned under the succeeding popes. It enjoyed a final period of brilliancy, under Caesarius, but after his time it conferred on the occupant merely an honorary title. In consequence, however, of the extensive authority of Arles in the fifth and sixth centuries, canonical discipline was more rapidly developed there, and the "Libri canonum" that were soon in vogue in Southern Gaul were modelled on those of the Church of Aries. Towards the end of this period Caesarius assisted at a series of councils, thus obtaining a certain recognition as legislator for the Merovingian Church.

The barbarians, however, were on the march. The great invasion of 407 made the Goths masters of all the country to the south of the Loire, with the exception of Bourges and Clermont, which did not fall into their hands until 475; Arles succumbed in 480. Then the Visigoth kingdom was organized, Arian in religion, and at first hostile to Catholicism. Gradually the necessities of life imposed a policy of moderation. The Council of Agde, really a national council of Visigothic Gaul (506), and in which Caesarius was dominant, is an evidence of the new temper on both sides. The Acts of this council follow very closely the principles laid down in the "Breviarium Alarici" -- a summary of the Theodocian Code drawn up by Alaric II, the Visigothic king, for his Gallo-Roman subjects -- and met with the approval of the Catholic bishops of his kingdom. Between 410 and 413 the Burgundians had settled near Mains; in 475 they had come farther south along the Rhone, and about this time became Arians. The Franks, soon to be masters of all Gaul, left the neighbourhood of Tournai, defeated Syagrius in 486, and established their power as far as the Loire. In 507 they destroyed the Visigoth Kingdom, and in 534 that of the Burgundians; in 536 by the conquest of Arles they succeeded to the remnants of the great state created by the genius of King Theodoric; with them began a new era (see Franks).

The transition from one regime to another was made possible by the bishops of Gaul. The bishops had frequently played a beneficent rôle as intermediaries with the Roman authorities. Before the barbarian invasions they were the true champions of the people. Indeed it was long believed that they had been invested with special powers and the official title of defensores civitatum (defenders of the States). While this title was never officially borne by them, the popular error was only formal and superficial. Bishops like Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Germanus of Auxerre, Caesarius of Arles, were truly the defenders of their fatherland. While the old civic institutions were tottering to their fall, they upheld the social fabric. Through their efforts the barbarians became amalgamated with the native population, introducing into it the germs of a new and vigorous life. Lastly the bishops were the guardians of the classical traditions of Latin literature and Roman culture, and long before the appearance of monasticism had been the mainstay of learning. Throughout the sixth and seventh centuries manuscripts of the Bible and the Fathers were copied to meet the needs of public worship, ecclesiastical teaching, and Catholic life. The only contemporary buildings that exhibit traces of classical or Byzantine styles are religious edifices. For all this, and for much more, the bishops of Gaul deserve the title of "Makers of France".

After the writings of EUSEBIUS OF CAESARIA, SULPICIUS SEVERUS, PAULINUS OF NOLA, SALVIANUS, GREGORY OF TOURS, etc., our principal source of information is the epigraphic material published by LE BLANT, Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule antérieures au VIIIe siècle (Paris, 1858-85), with a supplement (1897); IDEM, Les sarcophages chrétiens de la Gaule (Paris, 1896). SIRMOND AND LALANDE, Concilia antigua Galliae (4 vols., fol., 1629-66); also the catalogues or lists of bishops preserved in many dioceses and edited by DELISLE in Histoire littéraire de la France, XXIX.

General works devoted to the history and study of Christianity have chapters on the Church in Gaul. Special reference works: DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule, I (1894; 2nd ed., 1907), II (1900); HOUTIN, La controverse de 1'apostolicité des églises de France au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1901); Analecta Bollandiana, XIX, 354; MORIN, Saint Lazare et saint Maximin in Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de France, LIX (Paris, 1898); AUBÉ in Revue historique, VII (1878) 152-64; HAVET, Les origines de saint Denis in Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes (Paris, 1890), p. 25; DUFOURCQ, La christianisation des foules dans l'Empire romain in Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses, IV (Paris, 1899), 239; AMPÈRE, Histoire littéraire de la France avant le XIIe siècle, I and II (Paris, 1839); ROGER, L'enseignement des lettres classiques en Gaule d'Ausone à Alcuin (Paris, 1905); IMBART DE LA TOUR, Les paroisses rurales du IVe au XIe siècle (Paris, 1900); BABUT, Priscillien et 1e priscillianisme (Paris, 1909); DUFOURCQ, Le mouvement légendaire lérinien in Etude sur les "Gesta Martirium" romains, II (Paris, 1907); DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1889), 32, 84; IDEM, La première collection romaine des décrétales in Atti del secondo congresso d'archeologia cristiana (Rome, 1902), 159; ARNOLD, Caesarius von Arelate und die gallische Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipzig, 1894); MALNORY, Césaire, évêque d'Arles (Paris, 1894); CHÉNON, Le "Defensor Civitatis" in Nouvelle revue historique du droit français (1889), 551; CHATELAIN, Uncialis scriptura (Paris, 1902); ENLART Manuel d'archéologie française, I (Paris, 1902). For a more extensive literature see MONOD, Bibliographie de L'histoire de France (Paris, 1888); MOLINIER, Les sources de l'histoire de France, Pt. I: Epoque primitive, Mérovingiens et Carolingiene (Paris, 1902).

PAUL LEJAY

Aloisius-Edouard-Camille Gaultier

Priest and schoolmaster; b. at Asti, Piedmont, about 1745, of French parents; d. at Paris, 18 Sept., 1818; began his studies in France, and completed them in Rome where he was ordained; upon his return to France (1780) he devoted himself to the work of education and in 1786 opened a school in Paris, wherein he applied his principle of instructing children while amusing them. The French Revolution obliged him to seek refuge in England, and, finding in London a number of his former pupils of the French nobility, he opened a course for the education of French refugees. His principles were greatly admired and his methods commended by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He came back to France in 1801, and continued to teach and publish his educational works. Later another journey to London was undertaken for the purpose of studying the monitorial system of teaching, practised by Bell and Lancaster, a system which he wanted to introduce into the French schools. During the Hundred Days, Carnot appointed him a member of the commission for the reorganization of public instruction, and later Gaultier was one of the founders of the "Société pour l'enseignement élémentaire".

To give a complete list of Gaultier's works is impossible here. They include text-books for every branch of primary instruction, reading, writing, arithmetic, geometry, geography, history, logical and grammatical analysis, composition, politeness, etc., and they apply his method of instructive plays, that is, a system of questions and answers in which, according to the correctness or incorrectness of the answers, a scheme of loss and gain in credits constantly stimulates the interest of the pupils. While, from the point of view of modern pedagogy, this method has many obvious defects, especially that of being too mechanical and of insisting too much on mere memory, it was nevertheless an advance on methods previously used, and it acknowledged, though carrying it to excess, the great importance of the principle of interest in education. It must be supplemented by the application of the psychological principles of adaptation, reflection, and assimilation.

C.A. DUBRAY

Jean-Joseph Gaume

French theologian and author, b. at Fuans (Franche-Comté) in 1802; d. in 1879. While attached to the Diocese of Nevers, he was successively professor of theology, director of the petit séminaire, canon, and vicar-general of the diocese, and had already published several works, when he left for Rome in 1841. Gregory XVI made him a knight of the Reformed Order of St. Sylvester. A doctor of theology of the University of Prague, a member of several societies of scholars, honorary vicar-general of several dioceses, he received from Pius IX in 1854 the title of prothonotary apostolic.

Abbé Gaume is the author of numerous books treating of theology, history, education. Those of the first category are still esteemed, those of the second have fallen into oblivion, and those of the third gave rise to the famous question of the classics. These last writings are all inspired by one and the same thought; vividly struck by the religious and moral deterioration of his age, the author seeks its remote cause, and believes he finds it in the Renaissance, which was for society a resurrection of the paganism of antiquity, prepared the way for the Revolution, and was, in fine, the primal source of all the evil. Such is the dominating idea of the works "La Révolution" (8 vols., 1856) and "Histoire de la societé domestique" (2 vols., 1854). It is again met with in "Les Trois Rome" (1857). But to cure the ills of society it was necessary to devise a new method of moulding childhood and youth ; this was to consist in catechetical instruction and the exclusion of pagan authors from classical studies. In support of this method he composed his "Catéchisme de Persévérance, ou Exposé de la Religion depuis l'origine du monde jusqu'à nos jours" (8 vols., 1854); "La Religion et l'Eternité" (1859); "Traité de l'Esprit Saint (1864). To this series of works belong his "Manuel du Confesseur" (1 854) and "l'Horloge de la Passion" (1857), which he translated from St. Alphonsus Liguori.

The reform, or rather the revolution -- the word is his -- which he deemed necessary in classic instruction he had indicated as early as 1835 in his book "Le Catholicisme dans l'éducation", without arousing much comment. He returned to the subject in 1851 in a work entitled "Le Ver rongeur des sociétés modernes ou le Paganisme dans l'Education". The renown of the author, still more the patronage of two influential prelates -- Mgr. Gousset, Archbishop of Reims, and Mgr. Parisis, Bishop of Arras -- and above all the articles of Louis Veuillot in "L'Univers", which supported Abbé Gaume from the first, gained for his views a hearing which they had previously failed to secure, and provoked a lively controversy among Catholics. After having shown that the intellectual formation of youth during the first centuries of the Church and throughout the Middle Ages was accomplished through the study of Christian authors (ch. i-vi), Gaume proceeds to prove that the Renaissance of the sixteenth century perverted education throughout Europe by the substitution of pagan writers for Christian authors. In support of his thesis, he brings forward the testimony of men (viii-ix) and of facts (x-xxv), indicating the influence of classical paganism on literature, speech, the arts, philosophy, religion, the family, and society. Despite a proportion of truth, the exaggeration of his thesis was evident. It was the condemnation of the method held in honour in the Church for three centuries; Benedictines, Jesuits, Oratorians, the secular clergy themselves had, without opposition from the Holy See, made the pagan authors the basis of the curriculum in their colleges. Gaume did not go so far as to exclude the pagan texts; he allowed them some place in the three highest classes (the course comprised eight), but banished them from the first five years.

Consulted by the professors of his petit séminaire as to the course to pursue, the Bishop of Orléans, Mr. Dupanloup, addressed them a letter on classical teaching, in which he boldly declared himself in favour of the existing regulations and methods, thus preserving for the ancient authors the rank they had hitherto held, but at the same time assigned an important place to Holy Scripture, the Fathers, and modern authors. Sharply attacked by Veuillot in "L'Univers", the bishop retorted by issuing a pastoral on the classics and especially on the interference of lay journalism in episcopal administration, and concluded by enjoining on the professors of his petits séminaires to receive no longer "L'Univers". Then the question became even more burning; newspaper articles, brochures, pamphlets, even books succeeded one another on this question which created a general commotion among educationists. Gaume published in support of his thesis the "Lettre sur le paganisme dans l'éducation". For a time it seemed as though the diocese were on the point of division. At this juncture Mgr. Dupanloup drew up a declaration which was signed by forty-six prelates. It contained four articles, two of which dealt with journalism in its relations with episcopal authority, and two with the use of the classics. It was therein stated: (1) that the employment of the ancient classics in secondary schools, when properly chosen, carefully expurgated, and explained from a Christian point of view, was neither evil nor dangerous; (2) that, however, the use of these ancient classics should not be exclusive, but that it was useful to join to it in becoming measure, as is generally done in all houses directed by the clergy, the study and explanation of Christian authors. Abbé Gaume and his partisans lost no time in reducing their claims to the three following points: (1) the more comprehensive expurgation of pagan writers; (2) the more extensive ìntroduction of Christian authors; (3) the Christian teaching of pagan authors. Nevertheless it required instructions from Rome to put an end to this controversy. The Abbé Gaume published further: "Bibliothèque des classiques chrétiens, latins et grecs" (30 vols., 1852-55); "Poètes et Prosateurs profanes complètement expurgés" (1857).

LAGRANGE. Vie de Mgr. Dupanloup, II, vi, vii; E. VEUILLOT, Vie de Louis Veuillot, II, xviii L. VEUILLOT, Mélanges, Series I, vol. VI; Series II, vol. I; Le Correspondant (1852), various articles.

A. FOURNET

Bartolommeo Gavantus

(GAVANTO)

Liturgist, a member of the Barnabite Order; b. at Monza, 1569; d. at Milan, 14 August, 1638. Gavantus devoted himself early to liturgical studies, and with such success that his fame soon spread to Rome, where he was recognized as having a most accurate knowledge of the sacred rites. His chief work is entitled "Thesaurus sacrorum rituum seu commentaria in rubricas Missalis et Breviarii Romani" (Milan, 1628; revised ed. by Merati, Rome, 1736-38). In this work the author traces the historical origin of the sacred rites themselves, treats of their mystical significance, gives rules as to the observance and obligation of the rubrics, and adds decrees and brief explanations bearing on the subject-matter of the work. The book was examined and approved by Cardinals Millino, Muto, and Cajetan, and was dedicated to Pope Urban VIII. Gavantus was general of his order, and, in recognition of his great services, was named perpetual consultor to the Congregation of Rites by Pope Urban VIII 1623-1644.

DAVID DUNFORD

Gaza

(Heb. 'Azzah, "the strong")

A titular see of Palaestina Prima, in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

Gaza is one of the oldest cities in the world. Its first inhabitants were the Hevites (Deut., ii, 23). The Rephaim and the Enacim, expelled later by Josue, inhabited the surrounding mountains (Josue, xi, 22). The Hevites were driven forth by the Philistines who came from Caphtor (D.V., Cappadocia; Deut., ii, 23; Amos, ix, 7; Jer., xlvii, 4). Little else is known as to the origin of this warlike people, who occupied the whole Mediterranean coast between Phoenicia and Egypt, and whom the Hebrews could never wholly subdue. It is agreed, however, that they came from the southern coast of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean. Jeremias (xlvii, 4) speaks of the island of Caphtor, the isle of Cappadocia in D.V. According to Stephen of Byzantium ("De Urbibus," s.vv. Gaza, Minoa) the city of Gaza was a colony from Crete (cf. Soph., ii, 5). This statement is in accordance with the Biblical narrative which tells of reprisals made by the "Cerethi" (Cretans), a Philistine tribe. Philistines were established in the vicinity of Gaza as early as the time of Abraham; their leader, Abimelech, who bore the title of king, resided at Gerara (Gen., xxi, 33; xxvi, 1). Some critics, however, hold that the title of "King of the Philistines" was given to Abimelech, not because he was himself a Philistine, but because he dwelt in the country afterwards inhabited by that people. In any case the Philistines certainly possessed Gaza when Moses and the Hebrews arrived in the Holy Land. Though it was assigned to the tribe of Juda, the city could never be conquered by Josue on account of its high wall (Gen., xv, 18; Jos., xv, 47; Amos, i, 7). The tribe of Juda possessed the city by right but not in fact.

Gaza appears to have been the metropolis of the five satrapies which formed the territory of the Philistines; and like the four other cities, Ascalon, Accaron, Azotus, and Geth, it had a king whose power extended to all the cities and villages of the region. Samson, to escape from the hands of the Philistines, bore the gates of the city away on his shoulders during the night to the neighbouring mountain (Judges, xvi, 3); it was at Gaza that, blind and a prisoner of the Philistines, he pulled down the temple of Dagon on himself and his enemies (Judges xvi, 21-30). Dagon was not the special deity of Gaza. He is to be met with also at Ascalon, Azotus, and the other Philistine cities to which the term "Beth-dagon" is applied. To a certain extent the Philistines had transformed into a national deity this god of Assyrian origin, a monster in part the shape of a fish, in part also, the form of a man. The Israelites, who had captured Gaza before the time of Samson (Judges, i, 18), were still in possession of it in the time of Solomon (III Kings, iv, 24). It is probable, however, that at this later date the city merely paid tribute, retaining its autonomy.

The people of Gaza continued to manifest their hatred for the Jews, and carried on a brisk commerce in Jewish slaves (Amos, i, 6), which drew upon them the terrible maledictions of the prophets of Israel (Amos, i, 6-7, Zach., ix, 5; Jer., xxv, 20; xlvii, 5). The evils foretold began when the rulers of Egypt and those of Assyria or Chaldea engaged in their long and eventful struggle for the domination of Asia and world-supremacy. Being on the great highway of the conquering armies, Gaza was destined to special suffering. About 734 B.C., Theglathphalasar III numbered among his vassals Hanon, the King of Gaza, who had joined Rasin and Phacee, Kings of Syria and Israel, in revolt against the Assyrian monarch. On the approach of the Assyrian army Hanon fled to Egypt and the city was taken and sacked. But the victors had scarcely departed when Hanon returned to Gaza; and in 720 B.C. we find him on the battlefield of Raphia, among the allies of Pharao Shabaka, where he was defeated and taken prisoner. Shortly after this the Philistines of Gaza were defeated by Ezechias, King of Juda (IV Kings, xviii, 8), and were forced to revolt with him against the Assyrians; the latter, however, returned and again compelled the Philistines to submit. Asarhaddon and Assurbanipal numbered among their tributaries Tsilbel, King of Gaza. When the Assyrian empire had been destroyed Egypt sought to enrich itself from the spoils, and Pharao Necho II captured Gaza (Jer., xlvii, 1; Herodotus II, clix) on his way towards Carchemish, where he was defeated by the Babylonians, who, under the leadership of Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar), took the offensive and recaptured Gaza. The city was especially ill-treated, and had afterwards to pay tribute to King Nabonides for the building of the great temple of Sin at Haran. Later the Babylonians gave way to the Persians. Cambyses, on the occasion of his expedition to Egypt in 525 B.C., besieged Gaza, which alone dared to resist his march (Polybius, XVI, 40). It submitted, nevertheless, and under the Persian dominion, according to Herodotus (III, xv), who compares it to Sardis, one of the most beautiful cities of Asia, it enjoyed great prosperity. The people of Gaza, who seem to have been very courageous and very loyal to their masters, whoever they might be, refused to open the gates to the army of Alexander the Great (332 B.C.). He was forced to begin a regular siege, which lasted two months and cost him many men. After storming the city, Alexander laid waste to Gaza, put the men to the sword, and sold the women and children into slavery. He afterwards allowed the place to be re-colonized; but the new-comers were of a different stock from the old inhabitants. The Philistine stronghold made way for an Hellenic city (Diodorus Siculus, XVII, xlviii, 7; Arrian, II, xxxvi; Quintus Curtius, IV, xxxiii). Henceforth there is little peace for Gaza. For several centuries it was the battlefield for Egyptian, Syrian, and Jewish armies. It was taken three times by Ptolemy I, King of Egypt (320, 312, and 302 B.C.), and twice by Antigonus (315 and 306 B.C.). Finally it fell to the Lagidae, who retained it for almost a century. In 219 B.C. Antiochus of Syria took possession of it, and organized there the invasion of Egypt; but he was defeated at Raphia in 217 B.C., and compelled to abandon his conquest to the Egyptians. In 198 B.C. he again took Gaza, routed the Egyptians in the following year, and this time was able to retain his conquest. Jonathan Machabeus appeared with his army before Gaza, which refused to open its gates, so the suburbs were burnt, and the inhabitants compelled to give hostages, 145-143 B.C. (I Mach., xi, 60-62).

Alexander Jannaeus besieged the city for a whole year (98 B.C.) and finally captured it, through treachery, sacked it and slew a large number of the inhabitants (Josephus, "Ant. Jud.," XIII, xiii, 3; "Bel. Jud.," I, iv, 2). It was rebuilt later by Pompey and by Gabinius (Josephus, "Ant. Jud.," XIV, iv, 4; Appian, "Syr.," 51). Anthony ceded to Cleopatra the whole of the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Phoenicia, and Augustus gave Gaza to Herod the Great (30 B.C.). At Herod's death it became subject to the governor of Syria. In A.D. 66 the revolted Jews sacked the city, which was of course soon recaptured by the Romans (Josephus, "Bel. Jud.," II, xviii, 1). The era of Gaza, found on its coins and on numerous pagan and Christian inscriptions, dates from a journey of Pompey through Palestine, 28 October, 61 B.C. Gaza is mentioned only once in the New Testament (Acts, viii, 26), in connection with the route followed by the eunuch of Queen Candace. The Hellenistic city had transformed its Oriental deities into Graeco-Roman gods, and was long hostile to Christianity, which as late as the first quarter of the fourth century had scarcely secured a foothold there. It is true that Philemon, to whom St. Paul addressed an epistle, is spoken of as its first bishop; but this is merely an unreliable tradition. St. Sylvanus, its first bishop, martyred (310) at the mines of Phaeno, is called "bishop of the churches about Gaza" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," VIII, xiii; "De Mart. Palaest.," xiii, iv); Asclepas, his successor, is also called "bishop of the churches about Gaza." He assisted at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and was one of the Catholic bishops most feared by the Arians. He is always found among those who suffered the most severely in the Arian conflict, with men like St. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and others of that type.

Constantine the Great forcibly introduced Christianity into Gaza, but such was the hostility of the pagan population that Bishop Asclepas deemed it prudent to build the church outside the city. Near the church, but likewise without the walls, arose later the oratory of the martyr St. Timothy; in the same place were relics of the martyrs St. Major and St. Thea. Christianity, however, spread rapidly in Majuma, the port of Gaza, between two and three miles from the city and owing dependence to it. The citizens of the port obtained from Constantine the privilege of municipal independence for their city, under the name of Constantia, with the right to have its own bishops. When, later, Julian the Apostate withdrew rights from Majuma, it still retained its bishops, the most famous of whom were Peter the Iberian, a Monophysite ascetic, and St. Cosmas, foster brother and friend of St. John Damascene. In the neighbouring cities, e.g. Anthedon, Bethelia, and Menois, Christianity was also introduced with difficulty. Under Julian the Apostate three brothers, Eusebius, Nestabos, and Zeno, were put to death at Gaza by the populace. St. Hilarion, born in the neighbouring Thabatha, a small village, was compelled to flee to Sicily to escape persecution by the pagans (Sozom., "Hist. Eccl.," V, ix; Greg. Naz., "Invect. I in Jul.," 66-67). The first church built in Gaza itself was the work of St. Irenion (d. 393) whose feast is 16 December. He was succeeded by Aeneas, and later by St. Porphyry (395-420), the true restorer of Christianity in Gaza. This holy bishop first sent Marcus, his deacon and historian, to Constantinople to obtain an order to close the pagan temples. The Christians then scarcely numbered 200 in Gaza; though the rest of the empire was gradually abandoning its idols, Gaza was stubborn in its opposition to Christianity. The decree was granted by the emperor, and the temples closed, with the exception of the Marneion, the temple sacred to Zeus Marnas, which had replaced that of Dagon. There was no great change, however, in the sentiments of the people; so St. Porphyry decided to strike a decisive blow. He went himself to Constantinople during the winter of 401-402 and obtained from Arcadius a decree for the destruction of the pagan temples, which Cynegius, a special imperial envoy, executed in May, 402. Eight temples, those of Aphrodite, Hecate, the Sun, Apollo, Core, Fortune, the Heroeion, and even the Marneion, were either pulled down or burnt. Simultaneously soldiers visited every house, seizing and burning the idols and books of magic. On the ruins of the Marneion was erected, at the expense of the empress, a large church called the Eudoxiana in her honour, and dedicated 14 April, 407. Paganism had thus ceased to exist officially.

Gaza, now a Christian city, became rich and prosperous; and during the fifth and sixth centuries was the seat of a famous school of Christian rhetoricians. Monasticism also flourished there; and the Church recognizes as saints many religious of Gaza, e.g. Dorotheus, Dositheus, Barsanuphius, and John the Prophet; the Monophysite monks were also, for a time, actively engaged in its environs. At the Arab invasion, about 637, the city fell before General Amr. The Eudoxiana was converted into a mosque, and the Roman garrison, consisting of sixty soldiers under the command of Callinicus, having refused to apostatize, was slain at Eleutheropolis and Jerusalem ("Analecta Bollandiana," XXIII, 289-307; "Echos d' Orient," VIII, 1905, 40-43). The Arabs venerate the city as the burial-place of Hachem, the grandfather of Mahomet. When the Crusaders came, Gaza was almost in ruins; owing, however, to its situation on the way from Egypt to Syria, it soon regained prosperity. Baldwin III built a fortress there (1149) and confided it to the Templars. Saladin pillaged the city in 1170, but the fortress did not fall until 1187. Richard the Lionhearted held it for a brief time. In 1244 the combined forces of Christians and Saracens were defeated by the Kharezmians. The Turks finally took Gaza in 1516; and in 1799 Bonaparte held it for a few days. It is now known as Ghazzeh, and is a kaimakamat in the sandjak of Jerusalem. It numbers over 40,000 inhabitants, nearly all Mussulmans. There are only 1000 Greek schismatics, 150 Jews, 50 Protestants, and 150 Catholics. The latter have a Catholic pastor under the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Greek Church contains the tomb of St. Porphyry. Mosques are very numerous, among the most remarkable being Djamia-el-Kebir, the ancient cathedral of the crusaders, dedicated to St. John the Baptist; also Nebi-Hachem, in which is the tomb of the grandfather of Mahomet. The city is unclean, and its streets narrow and crooked. But seen from a distance, amid its surrounding vegetation, it appears magnificent. The entire district is well irrigated and cultivated; the soil is extremely rich, and the trade of the city rather prosperous.

MARCUS DIACONUS, Vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazensis (Leipzig, 1895); SIBER, De Gaza Palestinoe oppido ejusque episcopis (Leipzig, 1715); LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, III, 603-622; STARK, Gaza und die philistaeische Kueste (Jena, 1852); SEITZ, Die Schule von Gaza (Heidelberg, 1892); ROUSSOS, Trois Gazeens (Greek; Constantinople, 1898); SCHUERER, Der Kalender und die Aera von Gaza (Berlin, 1896); GATT in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.

S. VAILHÉ

Pietro Maria Gazzaniga

A theologian, b. at Bergamo, Italy, 3 March, 1722; d. at Vicenza, 11 Dec., 1799. At a very early age he entered the Order of St. Dominic, and after a brilliant course in the various branches of ecclesiastical sciences, especially philosophy and theology, he was, despite his youth, appointed to teach philosophy and church history, first in the various houses of his order and later at the University of Bologna. His genius, however, his untiring labours, and above all, his faculty for communicating knowledge did not long remain concealed within the walls of Bologna. Owing to the changes introduced into the theological faculty of the University of Vienna in 1760, the chair of dogmatic theology, which had been assigned exclusively to members of the Dominican Order, was vacant. It was but natural then that the empress, Maria Theresa, should appeal to his superiors to have him transferred to her cherished seat of learning. His fame accompanied him. Students from all quarters flocked to him. At his feet sat the empress herself, Cardinal Migazzi, the renowned Garampi, and even Pius VI, during his sojourn in Vienna, never failed to attend his lectures. After twenty years of active work he returned to Italy, where he continued to lecture in various places until his death.

In theology Gazzaniga is ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school during the latter part of the seventeenth, and the beginning of the eighteenth, century. By strict adherence to the traditional teaching of his school, he set himself against the spirit of his age, which sought to modernize and to conduct all theological schools of Austria on plans designed to render them more independent of ecclesiastical and royal authority. He succeeded in winning over to his cause Simon Rock, till then the faithful associate of Van Swieten, the inveterate promoter of the Jansenistic spirit in Austria, and with his assistance finally restored Thomism in the schools of that country. His fidelity to St. Thomas likewise rendered him very bitter against Molinism; so much so, in fact, that he succeeded in persuading the party of Father Gomar, as against that of Arminius, to subscribe to the Thomistic doctrine of predestination and reprobation (ad sanam Thomistarum de predestinations et reprobatione doctrinam descenderunt, Proelect., vol. II, diss. 6, n. 242). His principal work, the "Praelectiones theologicae habitae in vindobonensi universitate, nunc vero alio methodo dispositae, emendatae et auctae", has gone through many editions (9 vols., Bologna, 1788-1793; Bassani, 1831).

JOSEPH SCHROEDER

Gebhard (III) of Constance

Bishop of that city and strenuous defender of papal rights against imperial encroachments during the Investitures conflict; b. about 1040; d. 12 November, 1110. He was a son of Duke Bertold I, and a brother of Bertold II, of Zahringen. For some time he was provost at Kanten, then entered the Benedictine monastery at Hirschau and on 22 December, 1084, as consecrated Bishop of Constance by the cardinal-legate, Otto of Ostia, the future Urban II. The see of Constance was then occupied by the imperial anti-Bishop Otto I, who, though excommunicated and deposed by Gregory VII in 1080, retained his see by force of arms. At an imperial synod held at Mainz, in April, 1085, Gebhard and fourteen other German bishops who remained faithful to Gregory VII were deposed, and Otto I was declared the lawful Bishop of Constance. Luckily, Otto I died in the beginning of 1086, and Gebhard was able to take possession of his see. One of his first acts as bishop was the reform of the Benedictine monastery of Petershausen near Constance, which he recruited with monks from Hirschau. In 1089 he consecrated the new cathedral of Constance, to replace the old one which had fallen into ruins in 1052.

On 18 April, 1089, Pope Urban II appointed him and Bishop Altmann of Passau, Apostolic-vicars for Germany. Arnold, a monk of St. Gall, whom Henry IV appointed anti-Bishop of Constance on 28 March, 1092, tried in vain to eject Gebhard from the See of Constance. The latter had powerful friends in his brother Bertold II, Duke Welf IV, the monks of Hirschau and Petershausen, and the citizens of Constance. In 1094 Gebhard held a synod of reform at Constance, and in 1095 he attended the Synod of Piacenza. Soon, however, the influence of Henry IV began to increase in Germany. In 1103 Gebhard was driven from his see, and the imperial anti-bishop, Arnold, usurped the bishopric. With the assistance of Henry V, Gebhard regained his see in 1105, freed the king from the ban by order of Paschal II, and accompanied him on his journey to Saxony. Gebhard attended the Synod of Nordhausen on 27 May, 1105, the diet at Mainz on Christmas, 1105, was sent as imperial legate to Rome in the spring of 1106, and was present at the Council of Guastalla in October of the same year. In the fresh dispute that arose between Paschal II and Henry V, Gebhard seemed to side with the emperor, but, after being severely reprimanded by the pope, withdrew from public life and devoted his whole attention to the welfare of his diocese.

MICHAEL OTT

Emile Gebhart

A French professor and writer, b. 19 July, 1839, at Nancy; d. 22 April, 1908, in Paris. He was the grand-nephew of General Drouot, one of the most distinguished soldiers of the First Empire. Having finished his studies in the Lycee of Nancy, he was admitted to the Ecole Francaise of Athens, where he imbibed the Hellenic spirit and gathered a rich harvest of facts and anecdotes for his future works. When he returned to France he was sent to the Lycee of Nice and soon after appointed professor of foreign literatures in the University of Nancy. He was so successful that a chair of Southern European literatures was instituted specially for him at the Sorbonne, in 1880. For the twenty-six years during which he retained that position, he was the most popular professor, the Sorbonne, his course of lectures being attended by enthusiastic audiences both of students and of men and women of the world. In 1895 he was elected to the Academy of Moral and Politual Sciences, and in 1905 to the French Academy. He was fond of travelling, and every summer, for twenty-five years, he spent three months in Italy, visiting Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice, seeking rare and antique books in libraries, staying in monasteries and talking with the monks, and gathering information concerning popular legends from the common people on the streets and in the cottages of the poor. All the materials so collected were afterwards used in his books. His favourite subjects were Greek antiquity and the Italian Renaissance. He treated them in a masterly manner, showing a thorough but unpretentious knowledge. His style is clear, slightly sarcastic at times, but extremely agreeable. His principal works are: "Praxitele" (1864), "La Renaissance et la Réforme" (1877), "Les Origines de la Renaissance et Italie" (1879), "L' Italie mystique" (1890), "Le son des Cloches, contes et légendes" (1898), "Moines et Papes" (1896), "Autour d' une tiare" (1894), "Cloches de Noël et de Pâques" (1900), "Conteurs florentins au moyen-âge" [1901), "Jules II" (1904) "Florence" (1906). The last days of his life were dimmed by sadness. As he had always been fond of mysticism, which he had so well described in his lives of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of Siena, and as he disliked the rationalistic doctrines of the time the attacks of the Radicals on his religious and patriotic ideals wounded him deeply.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Gideon

Gideon or Gedeon (Hebrew "hewer"), also called JEROBAAL (Judges, vi, 32; vii, 1; etc.), and JERUBESHETH (II Kings, xi, 21, in the Hebrew text).

Gideon was one of the Greater Judges of Israel. He belonged to the tribe of Manasses, and to the family of Abiezer (Judges, vi, 34). Gideon's father was Joas, and lived in Ephra (Judges, vi,11).

The following is in substance the account of Gideon's judgeship as related in Judges, vi-viii: Israel, having forsaken Yahweh's worship, had been for seven years exceedingly humbled by the incursions of the Madianites and of other Eastern tribes. At length, they turned to God who sent them a deliverer in the person of Gideon. In a first theophany, granted him by day while he was threshing wheat, Gideon received the difficult mission of freeing his people; whereupon he built an altar to the Lord (Judges, vi, 24). In a second theophany during the following night, he was directed to destroy the village-altar to Baal, and to erect one to Yahweh. This he did with the result that the people clamoured for his death to avenge his insult to their false god. Joas, however, saved his son's life by the witty taunt, which secured for the latter the name of Jerobaal: "Let Baal revenge himself!" (vi, 25-32). Thus divinely commissioned, Gideon naturally took the lead against Madian, and Amalec, and other Eastern tribes who had crossed the Jordan, and encamped in the valley of Jezrael. Comforted by the famous signs of the fleece (vi, 36-40), and accompanied by warriors from Manasses, Aser, Zabulon, and Nephthali, he took up his position not far from the enemy. But it was God's intervention to show that it was His power which delivered Israel, and hence He reduced Gideon's army from 32,000 to 300 (vii, 1-8). According to a divine direction, the Hebrew commander paid a night visit to the enemy's camp and overheard the telling of a dream which prompted him to act at once, certain of victory (vii, 9-15). He then supplied his men with trumpets and with torches enclosed in jars, which, after his example, they broke, crying out: "The sword of Yahweh and Gideon." Panic-stricken at the sudden attack, Israel's enemies turned their arms against one another, and broke up in flight towards the fords of the Jordan (vii, 16-23). But, summoned by Gideon, the Ephraimites cut off the Madianites at the fords, and captured and slew two of their princes, Oreb and Zeb, whose heads they sent to the Hebrew leader, rebuking him at the same time for not having called earlier upon their assistance. Gideon appeased them by an Eastern proverb, and pursued the enemy beyond the Jordan river (vii, 24; viii, 3). Passing by Soccoth and Phanuel, he met with their refusal of provisions for his fainting soldiers, and threatened both places with vengeance on his return (viii, 4-9). At length, he overtook and defeated the enemies of Israel, captured their kings, Zebee and Salmana, returned in triumph, punishing the men of Soccoth and Phanuel on his way, and finally put to death Zebee and Salmana (viii, 10-21). Grateful for this glorious deliverance, Gideon's countrymen offered him the dignity of an hereditary king, which he declined with these noble words: "I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, but Yahweh shall rule over you" (viii, 22-23). He nevertheless asked and obtained from his soldiers the golden rings and other ornaments which they had taken from the enemy; and out of this spoil he made what seems to have soon become an object of idolatrous worship in Israel. Gideon's peaceful judgeship lasted forty years. He had seventy sons, and "died in a good old age, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father in Ephra" (viii, 24-32). His victory is alluded to in Isaias, x, 26, and in Ps. lxxxii, 12 (Heb., lxxxiii, 11), where the four kings mentioned in Judges, vii, viii, are distinctly named- a fact which shows that, at the time when this psalm was composed, the narrative of Gideon's exploits was commonly known in its present form. The various literary features exhibited by the text of Judges, vi-viii, have been minutely examined and differently appreciated by recent scholars. Several commentators look upon these features- such for instance as the two names, Gideon and Jerobaal; the two theophanies bearing on Gideon's call; the apparently twofold narrative of Gideon's pursuit of the routed enemies, etc.- as proving conclusively the composite origin of the sacred record of Gideon's judgeship. Others, on the contrary, see their way to reconcile all such features of the text with the literary unity of Judges, vi-viii. However this may be, one thing remains perfectly sure, to wit, that whatever may be the documents which have been utilized in framing the narrative of Gideon's exploits, they agree substantially in their description of the words and deeds of this Greater Judge of Israel.

Catholic commentaries on the book of Judges by CLAIR (Paris, 1880); VON HUMMELAUER (Paris, 1888); LAGRANGE (Paris, 1903); Non-Catholic by MOORE (New York, 1895); BUDDE (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897); NOWACK (Göttingen, 1900).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Nicolas Gédoyn

A French translator and literary critic; b. at Orleans, 17 June, 1667; d. 10 August, 1744, at Port-Pertuis, near Beaugency. After studying in the College of the Jesuits, he entered their novitiate in 1684, becoming later professor of rhetoric at Blois. Ill-health, afterwards, obliged him to resign this position, and leave the Society of Jesus, for which, however, he always retained his affection. A canonicate at the Sainte-Chapelle (Paris) and two abbeys gave him the means of devoting himself to educational works. In 1711, he was elected to membership in the Académie de Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, and in 1718 his free translation and adaptation of Quintilian, containing many allusions to contemporaries, was the occasion of his election to the French Academy. He also translated Pausanias (1731), and wrote "Réflexions sur le goût", published by d'Olivet in "Recueil d'opuscules littéraires" (Amsterdam, 1767). Several other memoirs and essays were collected by d'Olivet and published under the title of "Oeuvres diverses de M. Pabbé Gédoyn". They contain a life of Epaminondas, an apology for translations, essays on the education of children, Roman urbanity, the ancients and the moderns, etc. In education, Gédoyn is an advocate of progress, and deplores the routine and the tradition which make parents and educators conform blindly to received methods and usages without realizing that circumstances change and that methods of education should be adapted and modified in consequence. Three things are necessary to a complete education: knowledge, virtue and good manners; the constant endeavour of the master should be to develop these in his pupils. Since money spent by parents for the education of their children is an invested capital of the greatest importance, great care should be taken in the selection of tutors.

Nouvelle Biographie Générale (Paris, 1858), XIX, 802; d'Olivet, Vie de Gédoyn (1752); Maire in Buisson's Dictionnaire de pédagogie (Paris., 1887), I, i, 1149.

C.A. DUBRAY

Josef Anton Gegenbauer

An accomplished German historical and portrait painter, b. 6 March, 1800, at Wangen, Würtemberg; d. 31 January, 1876, at Rome. He studied first at the Royal Academy in Munich under Robert von Langer, remaining in that city from 1815 to 1823. Among his productions there were two idyllic works which were much admired, a "Saint Sebastian" and a "Modonna and Child", altar-piece for his native town. In 1823 the painter went to Rome, where he remained until 1826, studying especially the works of Raphael. He became notably successful as a fresco painter, and, on his return to Würtemberg, the king made him court painter and commissioned him to decorate the Royal Villa of Rosenstein. In 1829 Gegenbauer went again to Rome and worked on frescoes. During later residence at Stuttgart he was employed from 1836 to 1854 in decorating the royal Palace with sixteen scenes in fresco from the history of Würtemberg. These include incidents in the life of Count Eherhard II of Würtemberg. In the same building are many of his oil paintings, among them being "Two Shepherds", "Adam and Eve after their expulsion from Eden", and "Moses Striking the Rock". In the Stuttwart Gallery is also his "Hercules and Omphale". His other paintings in oil, ranging in date from 1829 to 1860 include many on mythological subjects: "Sleeping Venus and Two Satyrs", "Leda and the Swan" "Apollo and the Muses", "Bacchus and Ariadne", "Venus and Cupid", "Ceres and Jason", "Aeolus Aeola", "Pluto and Proserpine", "Neptune and Thetis", several Genii and Amorettes, and some portraits. Among Gegenbauer's frescoes, in addition to those already mentioned, are "Jupiter giving Immortality to Psyche", "The Marriage of Cupid and Psyche", four scenes from the life of Psyche, "The Four Seasons", an "Aurora"--all at the Villa Rosenstein. In addition to these works, we may mention, as well as various Madonnas, "The Ascension of the Virgin", "The Crucifixion", "Hercules and Omphale", the last in the Thorwaldsen Museum at Copenhagen.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg

A celebrated German pulpit orator, b. at Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 16 March, 1445; d. at Strasburg, 10 March, 1510. Until a scientific presentation of the his tory of the development of the Catholic sermon appears, an appreciation of even the most distinguished pulpit orator, although based on careful investigation, can only be a preliminary labour, for the picture, however elaborate, will lack the proper background. This is true in the case of the celebrated medieval preacher to the common people, Berthold of Ratisbon, and it applies no less to the great pulpit orator of the early sixteenth century, Geiler von Kaysersberg. More fortunate is the treatment of the subject in its relations to purely literary history, for the importance of Geiler in literature can be exactly determined. According to this history he was closely connected with those humanists of Strasburg of whom the leader was the well-known Jacob of Wimpheling (1450-1528), called "the educator of Germany". Like Wimpheling, Geiler was a secular priest; both fought the ecclesiastical abuses of the age, but not in the spirit of Luther and his adherents. They looked, instead, for salvation and preservation only in the restoration of Christian morals in Church and State through the faithful maintenance of the doctrines of the Church. The scene of Wimpheling's fruitful labours was the school, that of Geiler's the pulpit.

The surname "von Kaysersberg", given to Geiler by his contemporaries, was taken from the name of the place where his grandfather, who brought him up, lived. The father was killed by a hunting-accident when Geiler was three years old; and the excellent grandfather, who lived in Kaysersberg, took charge of the education of the child, sending him to the school at Ammersweiher, near Kaysersberg in Alsace, where his mother lived. When the talented boy was fifteen years old he went to the University of Freiburg in the Breisgau, which had just opened; two years later he received the baccalaureate, and after two more years was made master of arts. He now gave lectures on various writings of Aristotle in the next semester, and in the following half-year filled the office of dean of the philosophical faculty for a brief period. In May, 1471, he went to the University of Basle, also found but a short time before, in order to study theology, and obtained the doctorate in 1475. At Basle he became acquainted with Sebastian Brant, with whom he formed a lasting friendship. While at Basle, Geiler preached his first sermons in the cathedral and greatly enjoyed his pulpit labours; the confessional, however, caused him many difficulties of conscience. Basle, nevertheless, was not to be the place where his powers were to find their permanent employment. At the entreaty of the students of Freiburg, the magistracy and citizens of that city obtained his appointment to the Freiburg University, of which he was elected rector the next year. But lecturing to students was not congenial to him; his inclination was always for preaching, and in this latter office his talents found a life-work suited to them. For a time he preached in the cathedral of Würzburg, in which city he thought of making his permanent home, but a fortunate accident changed his plans. Peter Schott, senator of Strasburg, an important and influential citizen who had charge of the property of the cathedral, urged strongly upon Geiler, now a well-known preacher, that his first duty was to the people of Alsace; accordingly Geiler resolved, notwithstanding the entreaties of the citizens of Würzburg, to settle in Strasburg, and pursuant to this decision he remained there the rest of his life.

Before this date the mendicant orders had supplied the pulpit of the cathedral of Strasburg. On account, however, of the frequent change of preachers and, above all, owing to some friction between the mendicants, and the parish priests, the cathedral chapter, together with the bishop and the city authorities, desired to have a secular priest appointed to fill the office permanently. Consequently a special position, as preacher was made for Geiler, and he filled this appointment with apostolic courage and intense zeal for souls for over thirty years. He not only preached, as required, every Sunday and feast day in the cathedral, and even daily during fasts, but also, on special occasions, in the monasteries of the city and often outside of the city. His daily life, passed in this simple round of duties, was only broken by occasional short journeys for which he apparently used his monthly holiday. Thus he frequently visited Frederick of Zollern, Bishop of Augsburg, who was very friendly to him; once he was called to Füssen on the River Lech by his patron the Emperor Maximilian, who desired his advice. He seems to have taken his short intervals of rest, when possible, for making pious pilgrimages, generally in the vicinity of his home, sometimes to distant spots. At Einsiedeln in Switzerland he met the Blessed Nikolaus of Flüe, who was even then well known; another time he journeyed to Sainte-Baume, near Marseilles, in order to pray in the grotto of St. Mary Magdalen. At home he lived very plainly, even austerely. It was only natural that a life of such incessant labour, one in which the powers were constantly exerted to the utmost and none of the comforts of ease were enjoyed, should soon wear out the bodily frame. A kidney trouble developed, to relieve which he was obliged to visit annual the hot springs of Baden; dropsy finally appeared, and he passed away on Lætare Sunday of the year above mentioned. The next day, in the presence of an immense multitude of people, he was buried at the foot of the pulpit which had been especially built for him, and of which he had been for so many years the greatest ornament.

The numerous volumes of Geiler's sermons and writings which have been published do not give a complete picture of the characteristic qualities of the preacher. God's grace had made Geiler an orator, and the aim Geiler sought, without regard to other considerations, was to produce the most powerful effect on his hearers. He prepared himself with great care for the pulpit, writing out his sermons beforehand, as his contemporary Beatus Rhenanus reports; those preparatory compositions, however, were drawn up, not in German, but in Latin. Only a very small part of the sermons that have been issued under his name are directly his. At a very early date his addresses were taken down by others and published. The best critic of Geiler's works, the well-known writer on literary history, Prof. E. Martin of Strasburg, has made the attempt, in the "Allgemeine deutche Biographie", to give a summary of Geiler's genuine writings; according to him the authenticated writings number thirty-five. Notwithstanding this rich material, a proper appreciation of the extraordinary preacher is very difficult, because it is not certain that any of the extant works give exactly what Geiler said. One thing, however, is evident from them, that the Strasburg preacher was a widely read man not only in theology, but also in the secular literature of the day. This is shown by the sermons having Sebastian Brant's "Ship of Fools", which appeared in 1494, for their theme; these sermons attained the greatest popularity. Geiler displayed, also, exceptional facility in using public events to attract and hold the attention of his hearers. In originality of speech Geiler is in form, as in time, between Berthold of Ratisbon and Abraham a Sancta Clara, and perhaps the shortest and best characterization of the greatest preacher of the early Reformation period is indicated by this intermediate position; Berthold's homeliness of address showed only occasional lapses from the proprieties of speech, Geiler yielded oftener to the coarseness of his age, Abraham exceeded his contemporaries in unfortunate errors as to form and content.

According to the testimony of contemporaries, the effect of Geiler's forcible and unusual sermons was at times very marked; but the decay of morals was by now too great for them to have a permanent effect. Geiler himself complained bitterly that neither clergy nor laity were willing to join in a common reform. A man of austere morality; he never failed to show an apostolic courage towards both high and low, and exhibited an extraordinary daring in fighting vice and degeneracy of morals. Hence his works are an important source for the history of the civilization of these degenerate times. There are no distinct statements regarding what he effected by his personal influence among his intimate friends, especially by his influence on the pious family of the senator, Schott, upon Wimpheling and Brant, who were, like Geiler, reformers in the best sense of the word, as well as, by his counsels, upon the Emperor Maximilian. Another striking merit of Geiler's oratory was that his thoughts were expressed in the language of ordinary life, which he used with unequalled skill. In his way posterity possesses, in Geiler's writings, an enduring source for the knowledge of the speech, customs, and beliefs of the common people at the beginning of the sixteenth century. It is no longer necessary to take up a question warmly discussed, even in modern times, as to how a work of Geiler's came to be on the Index (cf. Reusch, "Der Index". I, 370) as in the last issue of the Index Geiler's name does not appear.

Chief sources: BEATUS RHENAUS, Vita Geileri (Strasburg, 1513); DACHEUX, Die ältesten Schriften Geilers von Kaysersberg (Freiburg, 1882); DE LORENZI, Ausgabe der Schriften Geilers (Trier, 1881-1883). See also VON AMMON, Geiler von Kaisersberg, Leben, Lehren und Predigen, (Erlangen, 1826); DACHEUX, Un réformateur catholique à la fin du Xve siècle (Paris, 1876); condensed in German tr. by LINDEMANN in Sammlung historischer Bildnisse (Freiburg, 1876); KERKER, Geilers kirchliche Haltung in Histo.-pol, Blätter (1861-62); MARTIN Allgemeine deutche Biographie; KAWERAU, in Realencyk fü r prot. Theol,; JANNSSEN, ed. PASTOR, Geschichte des deutschen, Volkes, I; PFLEGER, Sur Geschichte des Predigtwesens in Strassburg vor Geiler (Strasburg, 1907).

N. SCHEID

Johannes von Geissel

Cardinal, Archbishop of Cologne, b. 5 February, 1796, at Gimmeldingen, in the Palatinate; d. 8 September, 1864, at Cologne. After completing his classical studies at Neustadt-on-the-Hardt, and at Edesheim, he was received into the then imperial Lyceum of Mainz in 1813, and studied theology in the diocesan seminary of the same city, under Prof. Liebermann, from 1815 to 18. He was ordained priest, 22 August, 1818. For a short time he became assistant in the parish of Hambach. On 1 February, 1819, he was appointed professor at the Gymnasium of Speyer; on 24 June, 1822, canon of the cathedral chapter of Speyer; and on 25 May, 1836, dean of that body. Nominated Bishop of Speyer by the King of Bavaria, he was preconized by Gregory XVI, 20 May, 1837, and consecrated in Augsburg cathedral the following 13 August.

The new bishop displayed such zeal and efficiency that after four years he was called to a larger sphere of activity. After the accession to the throne of Prussia of Frederick William IV, the "conflict of Cologne" was to be settled amicably by an agreement between Church and State, to the effect that Archbishop Clemens August von Droste-Vischering would relinquish the personal direction of the archdiocese, which should pass over to a coadjutor with the right of succession. On 24 September, 1841, Gregory XVI appointed Geissel coadjutor to the Archbishop of Cologne; and on 4 March, 1842, he entered upon the administration of the archdiocese. When Clemens August died (19 October, 1845), Geissel succeeded him, and was enthroned as archbishop, 11 January, 1846. Finally, Pius IX created him cardinal, 30 September, 1850.

Geissel was a man of many gifts and great energy, one of the foremost German bishops of the nineteenth century. His services in behalf of the Catholic Church in Prussia and throughout Germany are of permanent value. Discretion and a sense of justice on the part of the government of Frederick William IV made it possible for the cardinal to regulate and ameliorate the conditions of the archdiocese in harmony with the policy of the State. He ended the heretical dissensions created by the Hermesian School by suspending the refractory Hermesian professors Braun and Achterfeldt of Bonn; and he reorganized the theological faculty of that university by calling in as professors Dieringer and Martin, men of unsuspected orthodoxy. He was also solicitous for the education of the clergy, and established two seminaries for boys at Neuss and Münstereifel. To instill new zeal into the spiritual life of his people he encouraged popular missions, introduced religious orders and congregations into the archdiocese, instituted the Perpetual Adoration, and stimulated devotion to the Blessed Virgin by celebrating with unusual splendour the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Of still greater importance for the Church in Germany was his convocation of the German episcopate to a meeting at Würzburg, 1848. The result of this meeting of the hierarchy was a number of momentous deliberations for the future prosperity of the Church. In 1860 he held a provincial council at Cologne. Another matter which the cardinal had at heart during his life, was the completion of Cologne cathedral, the preparations for which had commenced in 1842. Geissel lived long enough to see the edifice completed and dedicate in October, 1863.

In the years preceding his elevation to the episcopal dignity, Geissel also displayed notable literary activity. During the first two decades of its existence (1821-37) he contributed numerous anonymous essays of either serious or humorously-satirical character on questions and occurrences of the day to the "Katholik", and became one of the foremost contributors to that periodical. His unusual poetical talent is shown by a number of poems, mostly of a religious character, and published partly in that periodical, partly issued singly, as the occasion offered. After his death there appeared a special edition of his "Festgedicht auf die Grundsteinlegung zum Fortbau des Kölner Doms" (Cologne, 1865). However, his most marked effort as a writer is his historical work, "Der Kaiser-Dom zu Speyer. Eine topographisch-historische Monographie" (3 vols., Mainz, 1828); 2nd ed. in one volume, as Vol. IV of his "Schriften und Reden" (Cologne, 1876).

Other historical writings of less significance are: "Der Kirchensprengel des alten Bisthums Speyer" (Speyer, 1832); "Die Schlacht am Hasenbühl und das Königskreuz zu Göllheim" (Speyer, 1835). Of other separate writings are to be mentioned" Sammlung aller Gesetze und Verordnungen über das Kirchen- und Schulwesen im bayerischen Rheinkreise vom Jahre 1796-1830" (Speyer, 1830); "Die religiöse Erziehung der Kinder aus gemischten Ehen. Eine geschiehtlichen-rechtliche Erörterung" (Speyer, 1837); first published in the "Katholik", vols. LXIII, LXIV (1837). His pastoral letters, memoirs and addresses, composed by him during his episcopacy, show a great mind and heart. They have been collected with other dispersed and minor writings of earlier days, and various poems, in "Schriften und Reden von Johannes Cardinal von Geissel, Erzbischof von Köln, herausgegeben von Karl Theodor Dumont" (Vols. I-III, Cologne, 1869-70); later on vol. IV was added, "Der Kaiserdom zu Speyer", 2nd ed. (1876).

REMLING , Cardinal von Geissel, Bischof zu Speyer und Erzbischof zu Köln, im Leben und Wirken (Speyer, 1873); BAUDRI, Der Erzbischof von Köln, Johannes Cardinal von Geissel und seine Zeit (Cologne. 1851); PFÜLF, Cardinal von Geissel, Aus seinem handschriftlichen Nachlass geschildert (2 vols. Freiburg im Br., 1895-96); DUMONT, Diplomatische Correspondenz über die Berufung des Bischofs Johannes von Geissel von Speyer zum Coadjutor des Erzbischofs Clemens August Freiherrn von Droste zu Vischering von Köln (Freiburg im Br., 1880); Conventus episcoporum Herbipolensis (1848) in Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum recentiorum, Collectio Lacensis, V (Freiburg im Br., 1879), col. 959-1144. Acta et Decreta Concilii Provinciae Coloniensis anno 1860 celebrati (Cologne, 1862), also in Acta et Decreta s. Conc. rec. Coll. Lacensis, V, col. 231-382.

FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT

Pope St. Gelasius I

Died at Rome, 19 Nov., 496. Gelasius, as he himself states in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius (Ep. xii, n. 1), was Romanus natus. The assertion of the "Liber Pontificalis" that he was natione Afer is consequently taken by many to mean that he was of African origin, though Roman born. Others, however, interpreting natione Afer as "African by birth", explain Romanus natus as "born a Roman citizen". Before his election as pope, 1 March, 492, Gelasius had been much employed by his predecessor, Felix II (or III), especially in drawing up ecclesiastical documents, which has led some scholars to confuse the writings of the two pontiffs.

On his election to the papacy, Gelasius at once showed his strength of character and his lofty conception of his position by his firmness in dealing with the adherents of Acacius (see ACACIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE). Despite all the efforts of the otherwise orthodox patriarch, Euphemius of Constantinople (q. v.), and the threats and wiles by which the Emperor Anastasius tried to obtain recognition from the Apostolic See, Gelasius, though hard-pressed by difficulties at home, would make no peace that compromised in the slightest degree the rights and honor of the Chair of Peter. The constancy with which he combated the pretensions, lay and ecclesiastical, of the New Rome; the resoluteness with which he refused to allow the civil or temporal pre-eminence of a city to determine its ecclesiastical rank; the unfailing courage with which he defended the rights of the "second " and the "third" sees, Alexandria and Antioch, are some of the most striking features of his pontificate. It has been well said that nowhere at this period can be found stronger arguments for the primacy of Peter's See than in the works and writings of Gelasius. He is never tired of repeating that Rome owes its ecclesiastical princedom not to an oecumenical synod nor to any temporal importance it may have possessed, but to the Divine institution of Christ Himself, Who conferred the primacy over the whole Church upon Peter and his successors. (Cf. especially his letters to Eastern bishops and the decretal on the canonical and apocryphal books.) In his dealing with the emperor he is at one with the great medieval pontiffs. "There are two powers by which chiefly this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the priesthood and the authority of kings. And of these the authority of the priests is so much the weightier, as they must render before the tribunal of God an account even for the kings of men." Gelasius's pontificate was too short to effect the complete submission and reconciliation of the ambitious Church of Byzantium. Not until Hormisdas (514-23) did the contest end in the return of the East to its old allegiance. Troubles abroad were not the only occasions to draw out the energy and strength of Gelasius. The Lupercalia, a superstitious and somewhat licentious vestige of paganism at Rome, was finally abolished by the pope after a long contest. Gelasius's letter to Andromachus, the senator, covers the main lines of the controversy.

A stanch upholder of the old traditions, Gelasius nevertheless knew when to make exceptions or modifications, such as his decree obliging the reception of the Holy Eucharist under both kinds. This was done as the only effective way of detecting the Manichaeans, who, though present in Rome in large numbers, sought to divert attention from their hidden propaganda by feigning Catholicism. As they held wine to be impure and essentially sinful, they would refuse the chalice and thus be recognized. Later, with the change of conditions, the old normal method of receiving Holy Communion under the form of bread alone returned into vogue. To Gelasius we owe the ordinations on the ember days (Ep. xv), as well as the enforcement of the fourfold division of all ecclesiastical revenues, whether income from estates or voluntary donations of the faithful, one portion for the poor, another for the support of the churches and the splendour of Divine service, a third for the bishop, and the fourth for the minor clergy. Though some writers ascribe the origin of this division of church funds to Gelasius, still the pontiff speaks of it (Ep. xiv, n. 27) as dudum rationabiliter decretum, having been for some time in force. Indeed, Pope Simplicius (475, Ep. i, n. 2) imposed the obligation of restitution to the poor and the Church upon a certain bishop who had failed in this duty; consequently it must have been already regarded as at least a custom of the Church. Not content with one enunciation of this charitable obligation, Gelasius frequently inculcates it in his writings to bishops. For a long time the fixing of the Canon of the Scriptures was attributed to Gelasius, but it seems now more probably the work of Damasus (367-85). As Gelasius, however, in a Roman synod (494), published his celebrated catalogue of the authentic writings of the Fathers, together with a list of apocryphal and interpolated works, as well as the proscribed books of the heretics (Ep. xlii), it was but natural to prefix to this catalogue the Canon of the Scriptures as determined by the earlier Pontiff, and thus in the course of time the Canon itself came to be ascribed to Gelasius. In his zeal for the beauty and majesty of Divine service, Gelasius composed many hymns, prefaces, and collects, and arranged a standard Mass-book, though the Missal that has commonly gone by his name, the "Sacramentarium Gelasianum", belongs properly to the next century. How much of it is the work of Gelasius is still a moot question. Though pope but for four years and a half, he exerted a deep influence on the development of church polity, of the liturgy and ecclesiastical discipline. A large number of his decrees have been incorporated into the Canon Law.

In his private life Gelasius was above all conspicuous for his spirit of prayer, penance, and study. He took great delight in the company of monks, and was a true father to the poor, dying empty-handed as a result of his lavish charity. Dionysius Exiguus in a letter to his friend, the priest Julian (P.L., LXVII, 231), gives a glowing account of Gelasius as he appeared to his contemporaries.

As a writer Gelasius takes high rank for his period. His style is vigorous and elegant, though occasionally, obscure. Comparatively little of his literary work has come down to us, though he is said to have been the most prolific writer of all the pontiffs of the first five centuries. There are extant forty-two letters and fragments of forty-nine others, besides six treatises, of which three are concerned with the Acacian schism, one with the heresy of the Pelagians, another with the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, while the sixth is directed against the senator Andromachus and the advocates of the Lupercalia. The best edition is that of Thiel.

The feast of St. Gelasius is kepton 21 Nov., the anniversary of his interment, though many writers give this as the day of his death.

P.L., LIX, 9-191; CXXVIII, 439; CXXIX, 1210; THIEL, Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae (Braunsberg, 1868), I, 285-613, 21-82; JAFFE, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (Berlin), I, 53-60; DUCHESNE, Le Liber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886) I, 254-257; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Papst eim Mittelalter, I, 452-457, passim; THOENES, De Gelasio I Papa (Wiesbaden, 1873); Roux, Le Pape Gelase (Bordeaux-Paris, 1880). For the Sacramentary of Gelasius see PROBST, Die altesten romischen Sacramentarien und Ordines (Munster, 1892); BISHOP, The Earliest Roman Mass-book in Dublin Review (Octoher, 1894); WILSON. The Gelasian Sacramentary (Oxford, 1894): WILSON, A Classified Index to the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries (Cambridge, 1890); also P.L., LXXIV, 1049.

JOHN P.X. MURPHY

Pope Gelasius II

Born at Gaeta, year unknown; elected 24 Jan., 1118; died at Cluny, 29 Jan., 1119. No sooner had Paschal II ended his stormy pontificate, than the cardinals, knowing that the emperor, Henry V, had concerted measures with a faction of the Roman nobility to force the selection of a pliant imperial candidate, met secretly in a Benedictine monastery on the Palatine. Having dispatched a messenger to Monte Cassino, to summon the aged chancellor, Cardinal John of Gaeta, they turned a deaf ear to his entreaties and unanimously declared him pope.

John was of a noble family, probably the Gaetani. Early in his life he entered the monastery of Monte Cassino, where he made such progress in learning and became so proficient in Latin, that, under successive pontiffs, he held the office of chancellor of the Holy See. He was the trusted advisor of Paschal II; shared his captivity and shielded him against the zealots who charged the pope with heresy for having, under dire compulsion, signed the "Privilegium", which constituted the emperor lord and master of papal and episcopal elections (see Paschal II and Investitures). When the news spread that the cardinals had elected a pope without consulting the emperor, the imperialist party broke down the doors of the monastery; and their leader, Cenzio Frangipani, seized the new pontiff by the throat, cast him to the ground, stamped on him with spurred feet, dragged him by the hair to his neighbouring castle, and threw him, loaded with chains, into a dungeon. Indignant at this brutal deed, the Romans rose in their might; and, surrounding the robber's den, demanded the instant liberation of the pontiff. Frangipani, intimidated, released the pope, threw himself at his feet, and begged and obtained absolution. A procession was formed, and amidst shouts of joy Gelasius II (so he termed himself) was conducted into the Lateran and enthroned.

The triumph was of short duration; for, 2 March, the formidable figure of Henry V was seen in St. Peter's. As soon as he had heard of the proceedings at Rome, he left his army at Lombardy and hastened to the capital. Gelasius immediately determined upon flight. On a stormy night, the pope and his court proceeded in two galleys down the Tiber, pelted by the imperialists with stones and arrows. After several mishaps Gelasius at length reached Gaeta, where he was received by the Normans with open arms. Being only a deacon, he received successively priestly ordination and episcopal consecration. Meanwhile, the emperor, ignoring the action of the cardinals, placed on the throne of St. Peter a senile creature of royal power, Maurice Burdinus, Archbishop of Braga in Portugal, who had the audacity to take the venerated name of Gregory. Gelasius pronounced a solemn excommunication against both of them; and as soon as the emperor, frustrated of his prey, left Rome, he returned secretly; but soon took the resolution of taking refuge in France. He went by way of Pisa, where he consecrated its splendid marble cathedral, and Genoa. He was received by the French with the utmost reverence. The powerful minister of Louis VI, the Abbot Suger, conducted him to the monastery of Cluny. Gelasius was perfecting plans for the convocation of a great council at Reims, when he succumbed to pleurisy, leaving the consummation of the fifty years' war for freedom to his successor, Callistus II.

Baronius and Reumont agree in pronouncing that no historical personage ever compressed so many misfortunes into the short space of a year and five days. There seems to be no reason why the Benedictine Order should not take up his case for canonization. Benedict XIV tells us ("De Beat. et Canon.", I, xli, n. 30) that in his time the question was mooted; but for one reason or another it was overlooked. The life of Gelasius was written by his intimate friend, Pandulphus of Pisa, an eye-witness to what he narrates; it is in Muratori, "Rer. ital. Scr.", III, 1 sqq.

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 311-12, 376; WATTERICH, Pontificum Romanorum Vitæ (1862), II, 91-114; BARONIUS, Ann. Eccl. ad ann. 1118, 1119; GAETANI, Vita del pontefice Gelasio II (Rome, 1802, 1811); histories of medieval Rome by GREGOROVIUS; VON REUMONT.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Gelasius of Cyzicus

Ecclesiastical writer. He was the son of a priest of Cyzicus, and wrote in Bithynia, about 475, to prove against the Eutychians, that the Nicene Fathers did not teach Monophysitism. These details he gives us in his preface (Labbe, II, 117). Beyond that nothing is known about his personality. His "Syntagma" or collection of Acts of the Nicene Council has hitherto been looked upon as the work of a sorry compiler; recent investigations, however, point to its being of some importance. It is divided into three books (Labbe, II, 117-296): bk. I treats of the Life of Constantine down to 323; bk. II of History of the Council in thirty-six chapters; of bk. III only fragments have been published. The whole of book III was discovered by Cardinal Mai in the Ambrosian Library, and its contents are fully described by Oehler. The serious study of the sources of Gelasius may be said to have begun with Turner's identification of the long passages taken from Rufinus (X, 1-5) in bk. II. A complete analysis of the sources [the Hist. Eccl. of Eusebius, Rufinus (in the Greek version of Gelasius of Caesarea d. 395), Socrates, Theodoret, "John", and Dalmatius], will be found in Löscheke, whose efforts it would appear, have restored to Gelasius a place among serious Church historians, of which he has been wrongly deprived and have also lent weight to the hitherto generally rejected idea that there was an official record of the Acts of the Council of Nicaea; and further that it was from this record that Dalmatius derived the opening discourse of Constantine, the confession of Hosius, the dialogue with Phaedo, and the nine dogmatic constitutions, which Hefele had pronounced "most certainly spurious". The "John" to whom Gelasius refers as a forerunner of Theodoret, is still unidentified; from him were derived the published portions of bk. III, the letters of Constantine to Arius, to the Church of Nicomedia, and to Theodotus, all of which Löschcke contends are authentic. He also proves that a comparison of Constantine's letter to the Synod of Tyre (335), as given by Gelasius and Athanasius (Apolg., n. 86), shows Gelasius to give the original, Athanasius an abbreviated version.

Text of Gelasius in Labbe-Coleti, conc., II, 117-296; Oehler in Zeitschr. f. wissenschafliche Theol. (1861), IV, 439-442; Turner, On Gelasius of Cyzicus in Journal of Theological Studies (1899), I, 126-7; Löschcke, Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicensus (Bonn, 1906); Lejay in Revue d'Hist. et de Litt. Relig. (1906), XI, 279; Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, new Fr. tr., Leclercq (Parish, 1907), I, 391 sqq.

EDWARD MYERS

Gemblours

(Gembloux, Gemblacum)

A suppressed Benedictine monastery about nine miles north-west of Namur on the river Orneau in Belgium, founded c. 945 by St. Guibert (Wibert) and dedicated to St. Peter the Apostle and the holy martyr Exuperius. St. Guibert was assisted in the erection of the monastery and the selection of its monks by Erluin, who had resigned a canonry to become a monk. Some of Guibert's relatives impugned the legality of the monastic foundation on the plea that the monastery was built on fiscal land which had been given in fief to Guibert's ancestors and could not be alienated without imperial authority. Emperor Otto I summoned Guibert and Erluin to his court, but was so favourably impressed with the manner in which they defended their pious undertaking that on 20 September, 946, he issued an imperial diploma approving the foundation of Gemblours and granting it various privileges. Guibert appointed his friend Erluin first Abbot of Gemblours, while he himself become a monk at the monastery of Gorze near Metz. Twice he returned to the Gemblours; once in 954, when the Hungarians threatened to pillage the monastery, on which occasion he not only preserved it from injury, but also converted some Hungarians to the true Faith; and a second time in 957, when his brother-in-law Heribrand of Mawolt had seized the revenues of the monastery. He persuaded Heribrand to leave the possessions of the monastery unmolested in the future. On 23 May, 962, St. Guibert died at Gorze and his remains were brought to Gemblours. When monastic discipline was well established at Gemblours, Erluin attempted, at the suggestion of Count Regnier of Hainaut, to reform the monastery of Lobbes in 955. But on the night of 20 October, 958, three of the monks of Lobbes, who hated reform, assaulted Erluin in his cell, dragged him outside of the monastery, and inflicted on him serious bodily injuries. Erluin died at Gemblours on 10 August 986, after Pope Benedict VII had granted his monastery exemption and papal protection.

During the short reign of his successor Heriward (987-990), the monks voluntarily relinquished their right of exemption in favour of Bishop Notger of Liege, who was friendly disposed towards the monastery. Heriward was succeeded by Erluin II (990-1012), under whose weak administration monastic discipline greatly relaxed. His successor Olbert (1012-1048), a pious and learned abbot, restored discipline, built a new abbey church in 1022, organized a rich library, and by encouraging sacred and profane learning gave the first impulse to the subsequent flourishing condition of Gemblours. During the period of its greatest intellectual activity Gemblours was ruled over by Mysach (1048-1071); Thietmar (1071-1092); Liethard (1092-1115), and Anselm (1115-1136). Under Thietmar flourished the famous chronicler Sigebert (1030-1112), who in a neat Latin style wrote a chronicle of the world from 381-1111, a history of the Abbots of Gemblours, and other historical works of great value. His chronicle was continued by Abbot Anselm till 1136, and his history of the Abbots of Gemblours by the monk Gottschalk, a disciple of Sigebert. The learned prior Guerin, who was a famous teacher at the school of Gemblours, was a contemporary of Sigebert. In 1157 and again in 1185 the monastery was destroyed by fire, and though rebuilt, it began from this period to decline in importance. In 1505, under Abbot Arnold II of Solbrecg (1501-1511), it became affiliated with the Bursfeld Union (see Bursfeld, Abbey of). It was pillaged by the Calvinists in 1598, and was partly destroyed by fire in 1678 and again in 1712. It was just beginning to recover from these heavy misfortunes when in 1793 the Government suppressed it. The buildings are now used for a state agricultural college.

Toussaint, Histoire de l'abbaye de Gembloux (Namur, 1884); Berliere, Monastican Belge (Burges, 1890), I, 15-26; Idem in Revue Benedictine (Maredsous, 1887), IV, 303-315; Gallia Christiana, Ii, 554-568; Sigebert-Gottschalk, Gesta Abbatum Gemblacensium (till 1136), in P.L. CLX, 591-658; Mabillon, Vita S. Guiberti in Acta SS. O.S.B., saec. V, 299-314; Idem, Vita Olberti in Acta SS. O.S.B.., saec. VI, 596-606.

MICHAEL OTT B. Gerald Witzemann

Genealogy (in the Bible)

The word genealogy occurs only twice in the New Testament: I Tim., i, 4, and Tit., iii, 9. In these passages commentators explain the word as referring to the Gentile theogonies, or to the Essene generation of angels, or to the emanation of spirits and aeons as conceived by the Gnostics, or to the genealogies of Jesus Christ, or finally to the genealogies of the Old Testament construed into a source of an occult doctrine. Some even appeal to Philo in order to refer St. Paul's expression to the various stories and fables told about Moses and the Patriarchs. In the Old Testament the term genealogia occurs only in a few manuscripts of the Septuagint, in I Par., iv, 33; v, 7, 17; ix, 22; I Esd., viii, 1, where the commonly received text reads katalogismos or katalochismos. In the present article, therefore, we shall not dwell upon the term genealogy, but consider the parts, usually genealogical lists, introduced by the phrase "these are the generations" or "this is the book of the generation"; we shall investigate the meaning of the introductory phrase, enumerate the principal genealogical lists, indicate their sources, draw attention to their importance, and point out their deficiencies. Special genealogical lists, for instance those of Christ, found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, must be studied separately.

I. INTRODUCTORY PHRASE

The introductory formula, "these are the generations" or "this is the book of the generation", is the heading to the ten parts of the Book of Genesis. It occurs also in Num., iii, 1; Ruth; iv, 18; 1 Par., i, 29. Similar expressions are found frequently, especially in the Books of Paralipomenon. What is their meaning? They do not denote any genealogy or genealogical table in our sense of these words. There can be no questions of posterity in Gen., ii, 4: "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth", as toledhoth, the Hebrew equivalent of "generations", seems to imply. In Gen., vi, 9, the introductory formula is followed by the history of the Flood; hence it cannot point forward to a genealogical table. If we keep in mind, on the other hand, that primitive history was only genealogy adorned with various anecdotes and stories of incidents, we begin to realize that the genealogical portions of the Book of Genesis are abbreviated and rudimentary biographies. The proper meaning of our introductory formula is, therefore, simply, "this is the history".

II. GENEALOGICAL LISTS

The peculiar character of primitive history accounts for the numerous genealogical lists found in the books of the Old Testament. We shall enumerate only the principal ones: Gen., v, 1-31, give the Patriarchs from Adam to Noe; Gen., x, 1-32, the ethnography of the sons of Noe; Gen., xi, 10-26, the Patriarchs from Sem to Abraham; Gen., xi, 27-32, the posterity of Thare; Gen., xxii, 20-24, the posterity of Nachor; Gen., xxv, 1-4, the descendants of Abraham by Centura; Gen., xxv, 12-18, the posterity of Ismael; Gen., xxv, 23-29, the sons of Jacob; Gen., xxxvi, 1-43, the posterity of Esau and the princes of Edom; Gen., xlvi, 8-27, the family of Jacob going into Egypt; Num., iii, 14-39, the list of the Levites; Num., xxvi, 1-51, the heads of the tribes; Ruth, iv, 18-22, the genealogy of David; I Esd., vii, 1-5, the genealogy of Esdras; II Esd., xi-xii, the genealogy of a number of persons. I Par., i-ix, is replete with genealogical lists which either repeat, or abbreviate, or again develop the foregoing genealogies, adding at times other documents of an unknown origin. For instance, there is a brief genealogy of Benjamin in I par., vii, 6-12, a longer one in I Par., viii, 1-40; similarly a brief genealogy of Juda in I Par., iv, 1-23, a more complete one in I Par., ii, 3; iii, 24. The inspired historian makes no effort to harmonize these striking differences, but seems to be only careful to reproduce his sources.

In order to appreciate the foregoing lists properly, four of their peculiarities must be kept in mind:

• In the primitive languages each word had a certain meaning. Foreign names had to be translated or replaced by other names. As the Semitic language developed out of the primitive, the proper names too underwent a similar change, so as to assume a Semitic, and at times even a Hebrew, colouring. This does not destroy the historical character of the men known under these changed appellations; the martyr St. Adauctus does not become a mere fiction simply because his real name is unknown. Lenormant has left us a comparison between the antediluvian Patriarchs of the Bible and the antediluvian heroes of Chaldee tradition (Origines de l'histoire, I, Paris, 1880, pp. 214- 90), and the Vigouroux has given us a study on the mythological origin of the antediluvian Patriarchs (Livres saints et critique ration., 1891, IV, liv. I, c. vii, p. 191-217). All this goes to show that the names actually found in the Biblical genealogies denote the same subject, but do not present the same form as the original names.
• The names found in the Biblical genealogies do not always denote persons, but may signify a family, a tribe or nation, or even the country in which the bearers of the respective names dwelt. For instance, Jos., vii, 1, speaks of "Achan the son of Charmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zare of the tribe of Juda", while the context (cf. 16 sqq.) shows that Zabdi stands for the "house of Zabdi" and Zare for the "family of Zare". Again, throughout Gen., x, the genealogy serves as ethnographic purpose, so that its names represent nations or countries. The name of the country can be identified with that of its inhabitants, because the country stands for its people by way of a metaphor which has almost ceased to be so on account of its frequent use. The same proper name denotes an individual, a family, a house, a tribe, or a nation, on account of the idea of solidarity of the whole community in the merits and demerits of the individual member. This width of meaning of the genealogical names does not detract from their historicity, since the obscurity of one's grandfather of great- grandfather does not prevent one from being a real offspring of his tribe or nation.
• When the names in the Biblical genealogies denote particular persons, their connection may be only a legal one. A woman whose husband died without issue was bound by law to be married to her husband's brother, and the fist-born son of such a so-called levirate marriage was reckoned and registered as the son of the deceased brother (Deut., xxv, 5 sqq.). The question proposed to Christ by the Sadducees (Matt., xxii, 24; Mark, xii, 19; Luke, xx, 28) shows that this law was observed down to the time of Christ. Such a substitution of legal for physical parentage in the Biblical genealogies does not remove the offspring from his proper family or tribe.
• Finally, the strangers incorporated into a tribe or a family are reckoned among the descendants of the respective eponym. This custom explains the words of Jacob spoken on his death-bed (Gen., xlviii, 5-6); he ordains that the sons of Joseph, excepting Ephraim and Manasses, "shall be called by the name of their brethren in their possessions".

III. SOURCES OF THE GENEALOGIES

Generally speaking, the later genealogies were derived from written sources, either inspired or profane. For instance, the genealogy of Benjamin in I Par., vii, 6-12, is based on the data given in the Books of Genesis and Numbers; a more extensive genealogy of the same patriarch found in I Par., viii, 1-40, is based, no doubt, on written sources too, which are, however, unknown to us. As to the earlier genealogies, their veracity cannot be directly proved independently of inspiration. Written documents were used much earlier than the archaeologists of the first half of the eighteenth century believed. Moreover, very little writing was required to preserve the earliest genealogical lists, which are both rare and brief. We may grant freely that the art of writing was not known from Adam to the Flood, and for centuries after Noe. But keeping in mind the following facts, we find no difficulty in admitting oral tradition and memory as sufficient sources for these periods.

• It has been found that the power of memory is much greater among peoples who have not learnt the art of writing.
• Each of the genealogical lists belonging to the two periods in question contains only ten generations, so that only twenty names required to be transmitted by tradition.
• Before the introduction of writing, two devices were employed to aid the memory; either history was versified, or the facts were reduced to certain standard numbers. This second form was in use among the Scriptural nations. There were ten antediluvian Patriarchs, ten postdiluvian; seventy descendants of Jacob are named on the occasion of Israel's going into Egypt, though some of them were dead at that time, others had not yet been born; the ethnographical list of Genesis enumerates seventy nations, though it gives some names of little importance and omits others of great importance; I Par., ii, 3-55, gives seventy descendants of Juda; I Par., viii, 1-28, seventy descendants of Benjamin. This device guarded against arbitrary insertion or omission of any name, though it did not fully exclude the substitution of one name for another. A possible exception against such an arrangement will be considered in the last section.

IV. IMPORTANCE OF THE GENEALOGIES

The Hebrews shared the predilection for genealogies which prevailed among all the Semitic races. Among the Arabs, for instance, no biography is complete without a long list of the hero's ancestors. They register even the lineage of their horses, esteeming their nobility according to their extraction (Cf. "Revue des deux mondes", 15 May, 1855, pp. 1775-77; Caussin de Perceval, "Essai sur l'histoire des Arabes avant l'Islamisme", Paris, 1844-48). Among the Hebrews such genealogical lists were of still high importance for the following reasons:

• According to the Mosaic enactments, the Palestinian soil was given over to definite tribes and families. In order to recover, in the year of the jubilee, these family possessions, the claimant had to prove his legal descent.
• The nearest kinship conferred among the Hebrews the rights of the so-called Goel. Lev., xxv, 25, and Ruth, iv, 1-6, show some of the advantages implied in this right. The term Goel is rendered in the Latin Vulgate propinquus or proximus; in the English version it is translated by "kinsman".
• Again, the priests and Levites had to prove their legal descent in order to fulfil the honourable and remunerative functions of their respective offices. On returning from the Babylonian Captivity several were excluded from the priestly class because they could not prove their Levitical pedigree (I Esd., ii, 62; II Esd., vii, 64). Josephus (Vit., I) appeals to the priestly registers and is proud of the royal descent of his mother; he shows that even the priests residing in Egypt had their sons registered authentically in Jerusalem, so as to safeguard their priestly prerogatives (C. Apion., I, vii).
• Finally, the prophecy that the Messias was to be born of the tribe of Juda and the house of David rendered the genealogy of this family most important. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xix, 20) relates on the authority of Hegesippus that Domitian (A. D. 81-96) put to death all the descendants of David, excepting the relatives of Christ on account of their lowly condition.

V. DEFICIENCIES OF THE GENEALOGIES

It cannot be denied that some of the genealogical links are omitted in the Biblical lists; even St. Matthew had to employ this device in order to arrange the ancestors of Christ in three series of fourteen each. At first sight such omissions may seem to be at variance with Biblical inerrancy, because the single members of the genealogical lists are connected by the noun son or the verb beget. But neither of these links creates a real difficulty:

• The wide meaning of the noun son in the genealogies is shown in Matt., i, 1: "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham". This phrase prepares the reader for the view that the noun son may connect a person with any one of his ancestors, however remote.
• As to the verb beget, some writers maintain that the Hiphil form of its Hebrew equivalent refers to the immediate offspring, while its Qal form may denote a more remote generation. But this contention does not rest on any solid foundation. It is true that the Hiphil form occurs in Gen., v and xi; it is also true that the successive links of the genealogies in these two chapters appear to exclude any intermediate generation. But this is only apparent. Unless it be certain from other sources that the Hebrew word in question signifies the begetting of an immediate offspring, Gen., v, 15, for instance, may just as well mean that Malaleel at the age of sixty- five begot the grandfather of Jared as that he begot Jared immediately. The same holds true of the other Patriarchs mentioned in the above two chapters. Nor can it be urged that such an interpretation would destroy the chronology of the Patriarchs; for the inspired writer did not intend to transmit a chronology.

PRAT in Dict. de la Bible; KNABENBAUER in HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1905); PANNIER, Genealogiae biblicae cum monumentis AEegyptiorum et Chaldaeorum collatae (Lille, 1886); BRUCKER, La Chronologie des premiers ages de l'humanite in La Controverse, 15 March, 15 May, 1886, pp. 375-93, 5-27; VON HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Gen. (Freiburg, 1895), 572; IDEM, Das vormosaische Priesterthum in Israel (Freiburg, 1899).

A.J. MAAS

Genealogy of Christ

It is granted on all sides that the Biblical genealogy of Christ implies a number of exegetical difficulties; but rationalists have no solid reason for refusing to admit any of the attempted solutions, nor can we agree with those recent writers who have given up all hope of harmonizing the genealogies of Christ found in the First and Third Gospels. The true state of the question will become plain by studying the Biblical genealogies of Christ first separately, then in juxtaposition, and finally in their relation to certain exceptions to their harmony.

ST. MATTHEW'S GENEALOGY OF CHRIST

The genealogy of Christ according to the First Evangelist descends from Abraham through three series of fourteen members each; the first fourteen belong to the patriarchal order, the second to the royal and the third to that of private citizens. Matthew 1:17, shows that this arrangement was intended; for the writer expressly states: "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations."

The list of the First Evangelist omits certain members in Christ's genealogy:

• The writer gives only three names for the time of the Egyptian exile (Esron, Aram, and Aminadab), though the period lasted 215 or 430 years; this agrees with Genesis 15:16, where God promises to lead Israel back in the fourth generation. But according to Genesis 15:13, the stranger shall afflict Israel for four hundred years.
• The three names Booz, Obed, and Jesse cover a period of 366 years. Omitting a number of other less probable explanations, the difficulty is solved most easily by the admission of a lacuna between Obed and Jesse.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:11-12, Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias intervene between Joram and Azarias (the Ozias of St. Matthew); these three names cannot have been unknown to the Evangelist, nor can it be supposed that they were omitted by transcribers, for this conjecture would destroy the Evangelist's computation of fourteen kings.
• According to I Paralipomenon 3:15, Joakim intervenes between Josias and Jechonias. We may waive the question whether St. Matthew speaks of only one Jechonias or of two persons bearing that name; nor need we state here all the doubts and difficulties connected with either answer.
• St. Matthew places only nine links between Zorobabel and St. Joseph for a period covering some 530 years, so that each generation must have lasted more than 50 years. The genealogy as given in St. Luke enumerates eighteen generations for the same period, a number which harmonizes better with the ordinary course of events.

As to the omission of members in genealogical lists see GENEALOGY.

ST. LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF CHRIST

The genealogy in Luke 3:23-28 ascends from Joseph to Adam or rather to God; this is the first striking difference between the genealogies as presented in the First and Third Gospel. Another difference is found in their collocation: St. Matthew places his list at the beginning of his Gospel; St. Luke, at the beginning of the public life of Christ. The artificial character of St. Luke's genealogy may be seen in the following table:

The artificial structure of this list may be inferred from the following peculiarities: it contains eleven septenaries of names; three septenaries bring us from Jesus to the Captivity; three, from the captivity to the time of David; two, from David to Abraham; three again from the time of Abraham to the creation of man. St. Luke does not explicitly draw attention to the artificial construction of his list, but this silence does not prove that its recurring number of names was not intended, at least in the Evangelist's source. In St. Luke's genealogy, too, the names Jesse, Obed, Booz, cover a period of 366 years; Aminadab, Aram, Esron fill a gap of 430 (or 215) years, so that here several names must have been omitted. In the fourth series, which gives the names of the antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs, Cainan has been inserted according to the Septuagint reading; the Hebrew text does not contain this name.

HARMONY BETWEEN ST. MATTHEW'S AND ST. LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF HARMONY BETWEEN ST. MATTHEW'S AND ST. LUKE'S GENEALOGY OF

The fourth series of St. Luke's list covers the period between Abraham and the creation of man; St. Matthew does not touch upon this time, so that there can be no question of any harmony. The third series of St. Luke agrees name for name with the first of St. Matthew; only the order of names is inverted. In this section the genealogies are rather identical than merely harmonious. In the first and second series, St. Luke gives David's descendants through his son Nathan, while St. Matthew enumerates in his second and third series David's descendants through Solomon. It is true that the First Gospel gives only twenty-eight names for this period, against the forty-two names of the Third Gospel; but it cannot be expected that two different lines of descendants should exhibit the same number of links for the period of a thousand years. Abstracting from the inspired character of the sources, one is disposed to regard the number given by the Third Evangelist as more in harmony with the length of time than the number of the First Gospel; but we have pointed out that St. Matthew consciously omitted a number of names in his genealogical list, in order to reduce them to the required multiple of seven.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRECEDING EXPLANATION

Three main difficulties are advanced against the foregoing harmony of the genealogies: First, how can they converge in St. Joseph, if they give different lineages from David downward? Secondly, how can we account for their convergence in Salathiel and Zorobabel? Thirdly, what do we know about the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin?

First Difficulty

The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy. But these two consideration, viz. the received text and the traditional name of the father of Mary, which favour the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin, are offset by two similar considerations, which make St. Luke's list terminate with the name of Joseph. First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants.

Second Difficulty

The second difficulty urged against the harmony between the two genealogies is based on the occurrence of the two names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both lists; here again the two distinct lineages of David's descendants appear to converge. And again, two answers are possible:

(a) It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different genealogical series. But two levirate marriages will explain the difficulty. Melchi, David's descendant through Nathan, may have begotten Neri by a widow of the father of Jechonias; this made Neri and Jechonias uterine brothers. Jechonias may then have contracted a levirate marriage with the widow of the childless Neri, and begotten Salathiel, who was therefore the leviratical son of Neri. Salathiel's son Zorobabel begat Abiud; but he also may have been obliged to contract a levirate marriage with the widow of a childless legal relative belonging to David's descendants through Nathan, thus begetting Reza, who legally continued Nathan's lineage.

(b) A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them. The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized.

Third Difficulty

How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; II Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

KNABENBAUER in HAGEN, Lexicon Biblicum (Paris, 1907), II, 389 sq.; PRAT in Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris, 1903), III, 166 sqq. The question is also treated in the recent Lives of Christ by FOUARD, DIDON, GRIMM, etc. The reader will find the subject treated also in the commentaries on the Gospel of St. Matthew or St. Luke, e.g. KNABENBAUER, SCHANZ, FILION, MACEVILLY, etc. DANKO, Historia revelationis divinae Novi Testamenti (Vienna, 1867), 180-192, gives all the principal publications on the question up to 1865.

A.J. MAAS

Gilbert Génebrard

A learned Benedictine exegete and Orientalist, b. 12 December, 1535, at Riom, in the department of Puy-de-Dôme; d. 16 Feb., 1597, at Semur, department of Côte-d'Or. In his early youth he entered the Cluniac monastery of Mausac near Riom, later continued his studies at the monastery of Saint-Allyre in Clermont, and completed them at the College de Navarre in Paris, where he obtained the doctorate in theology in 1562. A year later he was appointed professor of Hebrew and exegesis at the Collège Royal and at the same time held the office of prior at Saint-Denis de La Chartre in Paris. He was one of the most learned professors at the university and through his numerous and erudite exegetical works became famous throughout Europe. Among his scholars at the Collège Royal was St. Francis de Sales, who in his later life considered it an honour to have had Génebrard as professor (Traite de l'Amour de Dieu, XI, 11). About 1578 he went to Rome where he was honourably received by Sixtus V and stood in close relation to Allen, Baronius, Bosio, and other ecclesiastical celebrities. Upon his return, in 1588, he became one of the chief supporters of the Holy League in France. On 10 May, 1591 he was appointed Archbishop of Aix by Gregory XIII, but accepted this dignity only after the express command of the pope. He was consecrated by Archbishop Beaton of Glasgow on 10 April, 1592. As archbishop he remained a zealous leaguer, even after Henry IV became reconciled with the Church in July, 1593. The new king, however, became daily more popular and gained over to his side most of the Catholics. Génebrard saw that further opposition would be useless and, on 15 Nov., 1593, sent his submission to the king ("Revue des questions historiques", Paris, 1866, I 616, note). This, however, did not prevent the Provencal Parliament from banishing him on 26 Sept. 1596. For a short time he stayed at Avignon, but being allowed by the king to return, he retired to the priory of Semur, which he held in commendam. Génebrard translated many rabbinic writings into Latin, wrote one of the best commentaries on the Psalms: "Psalmi Davidis vulgatâ editione, calendario hebraeo, syro, graeco, latino, hymnis, argumentis, et commentariis, etc. instructi" (Paris, 1577); is the author of "De Sanctâ Trinitate" (Paris, 1569); "Joel Propheta cum chaldæâ paraphrasi et commentariis", etc. (Paris, 1563); "Chronographiae libri IV" (Paris 1580), and numerous other works. He also edited the works of Origen (Paris, 1574).

MICHAEL OTT

General Chapter

(Lat. capitulum, a chapter).

The daily assembling of a community for purposes of discipline and administration of monastic affairs has always included the reading of a chapter of the rule, and thus the assembly itself came to be called the chapter and the place of meeting the chapter-house. The qualifying word conventual, provinical, or general, explains the nature of the meeting, and a general chapter, therefore, is one composed of representatives of a whole order or congregation or other group of monasteries. Historically, general chapters, or the germ from which they developed, can be traced back to St. Benedict of Aniane in the beginning of the ninth century. Although his scheme of confederation did not outlive its originator, the idea was revived a century later at Cluny. The example of Cluny produced imitators, and abbeys like Fleury, Dijon, Marmoutier, St-Denis, Cluse, Fulda, and Hirsau (or Hirschau), became centres of groups of monasteries in which a more or less embryonic system of general chapters was introduced. Later on, Citeaux, Camaldoli, Monte Vergine, Savigny, and other reforms, elaborated the idea, which resulted eventually in the congregational system inaugurated by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and since that date it has been the almost invariable custom of every order or congregation. The constitution, times of meeting, and powers of a general chapter, however, vary so much in the different religious orders that it is impossible to generalize on these points. At Citeaux, for instance, the chapter met at the mother-house every year, and was, in theory, attended by all the abbots of the order. In other orders the meeting of chapters was held every three or four years, and this has remained the more general usage till the present day. In those that are divided into provinces, the provincial superiors, and sometimes some other officials as well, presided over by the general, if there be one, form the chapter; in others, the superiors of all the houses. Amongst Benedictines, each congregation has its own separate chapter, which is composed usually of the abbot and an elected delegate from each monastery, with the president of the congregation at their head. A general chapter usually elects the general or president of the order or congregation, sometimes appoints the various superiors and other officials, settles matters of business and discipline, hears appeals from its subjects, and in some cases also has the right to draw up or sanction changes in its constitutions. Subject of course to the Holy See, it represents the highest authority in its own particular order or federation. For more detailed descriptions as to the composition and powers of general chapters, the separate articles on the various religious orders must be consulted.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Generation

(Lat. Vulgate, generatio).

This word, of very varied meaning, corresponds to the two Hebrew terms: dôr, tôledôth. As a rendering of the later, the Vulgate plural form, generationes, is treated in the article GENEALOGY. As a rendering of the former, the word generation is used in the following principal senses.

• It designates a definite period of time, with a special reference to the average length of man's life. It is in this sense, for example, that, during the long-lived patriarchal age, a "generation" is rated as a period of 100 years (Gen., xv, 16, compared with Gen., xv, 13, and Ex., xii, 40), and that, at a later date, it is represented as of only 30 to 40 years.
• The word generation is used to mean an indefinite period of time: of time past, as in Deut., xxxii, 7, where we read: "Remember the days of old, think upon every generation", and in Isaias, lviii, 12, etc.; of time future, as in Ps. xliv (Heb. xlv), 18, etc.
• In a concrete sense, generation designates the men who lived in the same period of time, who were contemporaries, as for instance in Gen., vi, 9: "Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations"; see also: Num., xxxii, 13; Deut., i, 35; Matt., xxiv, 34; etc.
• Independently of the idea of time, generation is employed to mean a race or class of men as characterized by the same recurring condition or quality. In this sense, the Bible speaks of a "just generation", literally "generation of the just" [Ps. xiii (Heb., xiv), 6; etc.], a "perverse generation", equivalent to: "generation of the wicked" [Deut., xxxii, 5; Mark, ix, 18 (Gr., verse 19); etc.].
• Lastly, in Is., xxxviii, 12, the word generation is used to designate a dwelling place or habitation, probably from the circular for of the nomad tent. Whence it can be readily seen that, in its various principal acceptations, the word generation (usually in the Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament: genea) preserves something of the primitive meaning of "circuit", "period", conveyed by the Hebrew term dôr.

GESENIUS, Thesaurus (Leipzig, 1829); FURST, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Leipzig, 1867); BROWN, DRIVER AND BRIGGS, Hebrew and English Lexicon (New York, 1906).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Genesareth

(Gennesaret.)

This is the name given to the Lake of Tiberias in Luke 5:1; called Gennesar in I Machabees 11:67. (See LAKE OF TIBERIAS.)

Genesius

(1) Genesius (of Rome)

A comedian at Rome, martyred under Diocletian in 286 or 303. Feast, 25 August. He is invoked against epilepsy, and is honoured as patron of theatrical performers and of musicians. The legend (Acta SS., Aug., V, 119) relates: Genesius, the leader of a theatrical troupe in Rome, performing one day before the Emperor Diocletian, and wishing to expose Christian rites to the ridicule of his audience, pretended to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. When the water had been poured upon him he proclaimed himself a Christian. Diocletian at first enjoyed the realistic play, but, finding Genesius to be in earnest, ordered him to be tortured and then beheaded. He was buried on the Via Tiburtina. His relics are said to be partly in San Giovanni della Pigna, partly in S. Susanna di Termini and in the chapel of St. Lawrence. The legend was dramatized in the fifteenth century; embodied in later years in the oratorio "Polus Atella" of Löwe (d. 1869), and still more recently in a work by Weingartner (Berlinn 1892). The historic value of the Acts, dating from the seventh century, is very doubtful, though defended by Tillemont (Mémoires, IV s. v. Genesius). The very existence of Genesius is called into question, and he is held to be a Roman counterpart of St. Gelasius (or Gelasinus) of Hierapolis (d. 297). He was venerated, however, at Rorne in the fourth century: a church was built in his honour very early, and was repaired and beautified by Gregory III in 741.

(2) Genesius of Arles

A notary martyred under Maximianus in 303 or 308. Feast, 25 Aug. He is honoured as patron of notaries, and invoked against chilblains and scurf. The Acts (Acta SS., Aug., V, 123, and Ruinart, 559), attributed to St. Paulinus of Nola, state: Genesius, native of of Arles, at first a soldier became known for his proficiency in writing, and was made secretary to the magistrate of Arles. While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood. His veneration must be very old, as his name is found in the ancient martyrology ascribed to St. Jerome. A church and altar dedicated to him at Arles were known in the fourth century.

(3) Genesius (Bishop of Clermont)

Twenty-first Bishop of Clermont, d. 662. Feast, 3 June. The legend, which is of a rather late date (Acta SS., June, I, 315), says that he was descended from a senatorial family of Auvergne. Having received a Iiberal education he renounced his worldly prospects for the service of the Church, became archdeacon of Clermont under Bishop Proculus, and succeeded him in the episcopacy in 656. He laboured earnestly for the maintenance of Christian morality, and founded a hospital at Clermont and also the Abbey of Manlieu. After five years, fearing for his own soul, he left Clermont secretly and went to Rome in the garb of a pilgrim. The bereaved flock sent a deputation to the Holy See. Genesius was found and induced to return. He then built a convent at Chantoin. He was buried in the church which he had built at Clermont in honour of St. Symphorian, and which later took his own name. In the life St. Prix (Praejectus), Genesius is mentioned as one of the protectors of his childhood.

(4) Genesius (Count of Clermont)

Died 725. Feast, 5 June. According to the lessons of the Breviary of the Chapter of Camaleria (Acta SS. June, I, 497), he was of noble birth; his father's name is given as Audastrius, and his mother's is Tranquilla. Even in his youth he is said to have wrought miracles--to have given sight to the blind and cured the lame. He built and richly endowed several churches and religious houses. He was a friend of St. Bonitus, Bishop of Clermont, and of St. Meneleus, Abbot of Menat. He was buried at Combronde by St. Savinian, successor of Meneleus.

(5) Genesius (of Lyons)

(Or GENESTUS.) Thirty-seventh Archbishop of Lyons, d. 679. Feast, 1 November. He was a native of France, not of Arabia or Armenia as is sometimes stated and became a religious and abbot (not of Fontenelle, but) attached to the court and camp of Clovis II where he acted as chief almoner to the queen, St. Bathildis. He succeeded St. Chamond (Annemundus) in the See of Lyons, and was consecrated in 657 or 658. His name is found for the first time as bishop in a signature of 6 Sept., 664, attached to a charter drawn up by Bertefred, bishop of Amiens, for the Abbey of Corbie. On 26 June, 667, he subscribed another charter framed by Drauscius, Bishop of Soissons, for a convent of the Blessed Virgin founded by Ebroin, mayor of the palace, and his wife Leutrude. In the conflict between Ebroin and St.Leger (Leodegarius), Bishop of Autun, Genesius (675-76) took the part of the bishop and was in consequence attacked by an armed band sent by Ebroin to expel him from Lyons; but Genesius collected a force and successfully defended his city. In September, 677, he assisted at an assembly held at Maslay. He was succeeded at Lyons by Landebertus. His body remained in the church of St. Nicetius till the beginning of the fourteenth century, when it was transferred to Chelles.

(1) LECLERCQ, Les Martyres, II, 428; Anal. Bolland., XVIII, 186.
(2)Gallia Christi., IV, 47; DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux, II, 170; and for each of the saints, SMITH and WACE, Dict. of Christ. Biog. (London, 1880), II, 627-28. (3) DUCHESNE, Fastes episcopaux (Paris, 1907), II, 37; Gallia Chr., Ii, 245.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

St. Genevieve

Patroness of Paris, b. at Nanterre, c. 419 or 422; d. at Paris, 512. Her feast is kept on 3 January. She was the daughter of Severus and Gerontia; popular tradition represents her parents as poor peasants, though it seems more likely that they were wealthy and respectable townspeople. In 429 St. Germain of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes were sent across from Gaul to Britain to combat Pelagianism. On their way they stopped at Nanterre, a small village about eight miles from Paris. The inhabitants flocked out to welcome them, and St. Germain preached to the assembled multitude. It chanced that the pious demeanour and thoughtfulness of a young girl among his hearers attracted his attention. After the sermon he caused the child to be brought to him, spoke to her with interest, and encouraged her to persevere in the path of virtue. Learning that she was anxious to devote herself to the service of God, he interviewed her parents, and foretold them that their child would lead a life of sanctity and by her example and instruction bring many virgins to consecrate themselves to God. Before parting next morning he saw her again, and on her renewing her consecration he blessed her and gave her a medal engraved with a cross, telling her to keep it in remembrance of her dedication to Christ. He exhorted her likewise to be content with the medal, and wear it instead of her pearls and golden ornaments. There seem to have been no convents near her village; and Genevieve, like so many others who wished to practise religious virtue, remained at home, leading an innocent, prayerful life. It is uncertain when she formally received the religious veil. Some writers assert that it was on the occasion of St. Gregory's return from his mission to Britain; others say she received it about her sixteenth year, along with two companions, from the hands of the Bishop of Paris. On the death of her parents she went to Paris, and lived with her godmother. She devoted herself to works of charity and practised severe corporal austerities, abstaining completely from flesh meat and breaking her fast only twice in the week. These mortifications she continued for over thirty years, till her ecclesiastical superiors thought it their duty to make her diminish her austerities.

Many of her neighbours, filled with jealousy and envy, accused Genevieve of being an impostor and a hypocrite. Like Blessed Joan of Arc, in later times, she had frequent communion with the other world, but her visions and prophecies were treated as frauds and deceits. Her enemies conspired to drown her; but, through the intervention of Germain of Auxerre, their animosity was finally overcome. The bishop of the city appointed her to look after the welfare of the virgins dedicated to God, and by her instruction and example she led them to a high degree of sanctity. In 451 Attila and his Huns were sweeping over Gaul; and the inhabitants of Paris prepared to flee. Genevieve encouraged them to hope and trust in God; she urged them to do works of penance, and added that if they did so the town would be spared. Her exhortations prevailed; the citizens recovered their calm, and Attila's hordes turned off towards Orléans, leaving Paris untouched. Some years later Merowig (Mérovée) took Paris; during the siege Genevieve distinguished herself by her charity and self- sacrifice. Through her influence Merowig and his successors, Childeric and Clovis, displayed unwonted clemency towards the citizens. It was she, too, who first formed the plan of erecting a church in Paris in honour of Saints Peter and Paul. It was begun by Clovis at Mont-lès-Paris, shortly before his death in 511. Genevieve died the following year, and when the church was completed her body was interred within it. This fact, and the numerous miracles wrought at her tomb, caused the name of Sainte-Geneviève to be given to it. Kings, princes, and people enriched it with their gifts. In 847 it was plundered by the Normans and was partially rebuilt, but was completed only in 1177. This church having fallen into decay once more, Louis XV began the construction of a new church in 1764. The Revolution broke out before it was dedicated, and it was taken over in 1791, under the name of the Panthéon, by the Constituent Assembly, to be a burial place for distinguished Frenchmen. It was restored to Catholic purposes in 1821 and 1852, having been secularized as a national mausoleum in 1831 and, finally, in l885. St. Genevieve's relics were preserved in her church, with great devotion, for centuries, and Paris received striking proof of the efficacy of her intercession. She saved the city from complete inundation in 834. In 1129 a violent plague, known as the mal des ardents, carried off over 14,000 victims, but it ceased suddenly during a procession in her honour. Innocent II, who had come to Paris to implore the king's help against the Antipope Anacletus in 1130, examined personally into the miracle and was so convinced of its authenticity that he ordered a feast to be kept annually in honour of the event on 26 November. A small church, called Sainte-Geneviève des Ardents, commemorated the miracle till 1747, when it was pulled down to make room for the Foundling Hospital. The saint's relics were carried in procession yearly to the cathedral, and Mme de Sévigné gives a description of the pageant in one of her letters.

The revolutionaries of 1793 destroyed most of the relics preserved in St. Genevieve's church, and the rest were cast to the winds by the mob in 1871. Fortunately, however, a large relic had been kept at Verneuil, Oise, in the eighteenth century, and is still extant. The church built by Clovis was entrusted to the Benedictines. In the ninth century they were replaced by secular canons. In 1148, under Eugene III and Louis VII, canons from St. Victor's Abbey at Senlis were introduced. About 1619 Louis XIII named Cardinal François de La Rochefoucauld Abbot of St. Genevieve s. The canons had been lax and the cardinal selected Charles Faure to reform them. This holy man was born in 1594, and entered the canons regular at Senlis. He was remarkable for his piety, and, when ordained, succeeded after a hard struggle in reforming the abbey. Many of the houses of the canons regular adopted his reform. He and a dozen companions took charge of Sainte-Geneviève-du-Mont, at Paris, in 1634. This became the mother-house of a new congregation, the Canons Regular of St. Genevieve, which spread widely over France. Another institute called after the saint was the Daughters of St. Genevieve, founded at Paris, in 1636, by Francesca de Blosset, with the object of nursing the sick and teaching young girls. A somewhat similar institute, popularly known as the Miramiones, had been founded under the invocation of the Holy Trinity, in 1611, by Marie Bonneau de Rubella Beauharnais de Miramion. These two institutes were united in 1665, and the associates called the Canonesses of St. Genevieve. The members took no vows, but merely promised obedience to the rules as long as they remained in the institute. Suppressed during the Revolution, it was revived in 1806 by Jeanne-Claude Jacoulet under the name of the Sisters of the Holy Family. They now have charge of over 150 schools and orphanages.

Vie de Sainte Geneviève, ed. Charpentier (Paris, 1697); Acta SS., Jan., I, 137-8, 725; Tillemont, Mémoires (Paris, 1712), XVI, 621 and 802; Gallia Christiana, VII, 700; Butler, Lives of the Saints, I, 17-20; Bennett in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Delalain, Légendes historiques de Sainte Geneviève (Paris, 1872); Trianon in Revue du Monde Catholique (Paris, 1872), XXXIV, 470-82; Park in Dublin University Magazine (Dublin, 1876), LXXXVII, 102; Guérin, Vie des Saints (Paris, 1880), I, 92-104; Vidieu, Sainte Geneviève et son influence sur les destinées de la France (Paris, 1896); Fleury, Hist. ecclés., LXIX, 22, LXXIV, 39.

A.A. MACERLEAN

Land of Genezareth

By this name is designated in Mark, vi, 53, a district of Palestine bordering on the Sea of Galilee, and which in the parallel passage of Matthew (xiv, 34) is called "the country of Genesar". The two forms of the name are obviously cognate, but their origin and signification are disputed points among Biblical scholars, nor is there unanimity of opinion as to whether the name was given first to the land and afterwards to the lake or vice versa. The traditional signification: "Garden of the Princes" (as if derived from Gan-sarim) goes back to St. Jerome and the Talmud. Several modern scholars, however, prefer the derivation of the name from the Hebrew word kinnereth; or from the plural form kinneroth, cognate with kinnor, signifying a harp or zither. This name, according to them, would have been originally given to the lake on account of the supposed harp-like shape of its contour; but it seems more probable that the name was first used to designate the district, and was derived from the ancient fortified city within the borders of Nephtali; mentioned Book of Josue as Ceneroth in xi, 2, and as Cenereth in xix, 35. According to the Gospel narrative (cf. Matt., xiv, 13-36; Mark, vi, 31-56; Luke, ix, 10-17), which is confirmed by the description found in Josephus (Bel. Jud., III, x), the land of Genezareth lay to the west, and partly to the north, of the lake of the same name and bordered thereon. These sources do not determine the exact boundaries of the district, but it is probable from other incidental indications that it comprised the entire west coast of the lake, extending westward as far as the boundary separating Nephtali and Zabulon from Aser, and northward probably as far as the plain of Huleh and the mountains of Safed. Physically the district resembles somewhat a section of a tract amphitheatre, sloping, gently on the northern side and more abruptly on the west, toward the low basin of the lake, and terminating in the plain now called Ghueir.

From the historical and religious standpoint the land of Genezareth is one of the most interesting localities in all Palestine, chiefly because of its connection with the public ministry of Our Lord. Within its boundaries were located Capharnaum, Corozain, Arbela, Magdala, and Tiberias, as well as the more ancient Cenereth. Of these once famous towns nothing remains at present except a few ruins, and the two wretched little villages occupying the site of Tiberias and of Magdala. According to the descriptions found in the Talmud, this region was a marvel of richness and fertility, a veritable paradise; and the same is firmed by Josephus (loc. cit.), who describes it as "wonderful in fertility as well as in beauty". He adds: "Its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it . . . for the air is so well tempered that it agrees with all sorts. Thus the palm-tree, which requires a warm atmosphere, flourishes equally well with the walnut, which thrives best in a cold climate . . . One may say that this place accomplishes a marvel of nature, forcing those plants which are naturally enemies of one another to agree together." It was noted for its delicious fruits of all varieties, and the climate was such that they flourished in nearly all the seasons of the year. Centuries of neglect have completely obliterated all this richness and luxuriance; and at present, except a few scattered psalms and wild fig-trees, the slopes of the land of Genezareth are barren and lifeless as are most of the other regions of Palestine.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Girolamo Genga

A painter, born at Urbino in 1476; died at the same place, 1551. This talented craftsman was apprenticed in his fifteenth year to Luca Signorelli, whom he assisted in many of his works, especially at Orvieto. He then attached himself to Perugino, in whose school he was for three years, becoming the intimate friend of Raphael. After a residence in Florence and Siena he returned to Urbino to carry out some work for the duke, Guidobaldo II. Later on he resided at Rome, where he painted an altar-piece for the church of St. Catherine of Siena, but, in 1012, returned to Urbino at the request of the then duke, Francesco Maria, with whom eventually he went into banishment at Cesena, and for whom he painted his chief altar-piece, "God the Father, the Virgin, and Four Fathers of the Church", now in the Brera at Milan. He was not only a painter and sculptor, but a modeller in wax, clay, and terra-cotta, and some of the drinking-cups he executed in wax were used as models for finished works in silver. He designed vestments and musical instruments, and was an admirable musician himself. Vasari speaks of him as "an admirable inventor" and again as "a man of the most upright character, insomuch that a bad action committed by him was never heard of." In the Pitti Palace at Florence there is "Holy Family" which was painted by Genga.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Edward Génicot

Moral theologian, b. at Antwerp, Belgium, 18 June, 1856; d. at Louvain, 21 February, 1900. After making a brilliant course of studies at the Jesuit college in his native city, he entered the Society of Jesus, 27 September, 1872. He was successively professor of humanities and of rhetoric at Ghent and at Antwerp, and after being ordained priest and sustaining a public defense in all theology, taught first canon law and then moral theology at the Jesuit college in Louvain from 1889 until his comparatively early and unexpected death. Father Génicot was a professor well liked by all his classes because of the solidity and clearness of his teaching. In 1896 he published his "Theologiæ Moralis Institutiones" in which the sixth edition, in harmony with recent decrees of the Holy See, appeared in 1909 (Brussels). Father Génicot drew his inspiration chiefly from the large work of Ballerini-Palmieri. His own work is characterized by a clearness of exposition, firm and straightforward judgment, avoidance and subtleties and rejection of defective arguments; also by marked intellectual honesty that dares to follow principles to their utmost conclusions and set down the conduct confessors may legitimately follow in the confessional. Confessors have no reason to fear the broadness of his conclusions, if they do not actually pass by the limits prescribed by the author. Another work, "Casus Conscientiæ", was published after the author's death. The third edition (1906) appeared with additions and corrections in 1909 (Louvain). These Casus, gathered in large part from actual experience, are remarkable for their presentation of real life and are something more than a mere repetition of theory.

J. SALSMANS

St. Gennadius I

Patriarch of Constantinople (458-471), has left scarcely any writings. Facundus (Defensio, II, iv) states that he wrote against St. Cyril of Alexandria, probably in 431-2, and quotes a passage to show that his work was more violent even than the letter of Ibas. If St. Cyril's letter of 434 (Ep. lvi) is to the same Gennadius, they were friends in that year. Gennadius succeeded Anatolius as Bishop of Constantinople in 458. On 17 June, 460, St. Leo wrote to him (Ep. clxx) warning him against Timothy Aelurus, the Monophysite who had made himself Patriarch of Alexandria. Not later, it seems, than 459 St. Gennadius celebrated a great council of eighty-one bishops, many of whom were from the East and even from Egypt, including those who had been dispossessed of their sees by Aelurus. The letter of this council against simony is still preserved (Mansi, VII, 912). About the same time St. Daniel the Stylite began to live on a column near Constantinople, apparently without the Patriarch's leave, and certainly without the permisslon of Gelasius, the owner of the property where the pillar stood, who strongly objected to this strange invasion of his land. The Emperor Leo protected the ascetic, and some time later sent St. Gennadius to ordain him priest, which he is said to have done standing at the foot of the column, since St. Daniel objected to being ordained, and refused to let the bishop mount the ladder. At the end of the rite, however, the patriarch ascended to give Holy Communion to the stylite and to receive it from him. Whether he then imposed his hands on him is not said. Possibly he considered it sufficient to extend them from below towards the saint. According to Theodorus Lector, Gennadius would allow no one to become a cleric unless he had learned the Psalter by heart. He made St. Marcian oeconomus of the Church of Constantinople.

St. Gennadius is said by Joannes Moschus to have been very mild and of great purity. We are told by Gennadius of Marseilles that he was lingua nitidus et ingenio acer, and so rich in knowledge of the ancients that he composed a commentary on the whole Book of Daniel. The continuation of St. Jerome's Chronicle by Marcellinus Comes tells us (according to some manuscripts) that Gennadius commented on all St. Paul's Epistles. Some fragments are collected in Migne, P.G., LXXXV, chiefly from the two catenae of Cramer on Romans; a few passages are found in the catena of Aecumenius, and a few in the Vienna MS. gr. 166 (46). Some fragments in the catenae of Niceohorus show that Gennadius also commented on Genesis. He is seen to have been a learned writer, who followed the Antiochene school of literal exegesis. He is celebrated in the Greek Menaea on 25 Aug. and 17 Nov., and on the former day in the Roman-Martyrology.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Gennadius II

Patriarch of Constantinople (1454-1456).

His original name was George Scholarius (Georgios Kourtesios Scholarios). He was born about 1400, was first a teacher of philosophy and then judge in the civil courts under the Emperor John VIII (1425-1448). In this capacity he accompanied his master to the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439) and was at that time in favour of the union. He made four speeches at the council, all exceedingly conciliatory, and wrote a refutation of the first eighteen of Marcus Eugenicus's syllogistic chapters against the Latins. But when he came back to Constantinople, like most of his countrymen, he changed his mind. Marcus Eugenicus converted him completely to anti-Latin Orthodoxy, and from this time till his death he was known (with Marcus) as the most uncompromising enemy of the union. He then wrote many works to defend his new convictions, which differ so much from the earlier conciliatory ones that Allatius thought there must be two people of the same name ("Diatriba de Georgiis" in Fabricius-Harles "Bibliotheca Græca", X, 760-786); to whom Gibbon: "Renaudot has restored the identity of his person, and the duplicity of his character" ("Decline and Fall", lxviii, note 41. For Renaudot's work see bibliography below). Scholarius entered the monastery "of the Almighty" (tou Pantokratoros) under Constantine XI (1448-1453) and took, according to the invariable custom, a new name -- Gennadius. Before the fall of the city he was already well known as a bitter opponent of the union. He and Marcus Eugenicus were the leaders of the anti-Latin party. In 1447, Marcus on his death-bed praised Gennadius's irreconcilable attitude towards the Latins and the union (P. G., CLX, 529). It was to Gennadius that the angry people went after seeing the Uniat services in the great church of Santa Sophia. It is said that he hid himself, but left a notice on the door of his cell: "O unhappy Romans, why have you forsaken the truth? Why do you not trust in God, instead of in the Italians? In losing your faith you will lose your city", and so on (quoted by Gibbon, ibid., ed. Bury, VII, 176).

As soon as the massacre of 29 May, 1453, was over, when Mohammed the conqueror thought of reorganizing the now subject Christians, he was naturally anxious to put an end to any sort of alliance between them and the Western princes. So he sent for this Gennadius because he was one of the chief enemies of the union, and told him to be patriarch. The see had been vacant three years, since the resignation of Athanasius II (1450). On 1 June, 1453, the new patriarch‘s procession passed through the streets that were still reeking with blood; Mohammed received Gennadius graciously and himself invested him with the signs of his office -- the crosier (dikanikion) and mantle. This degrading ceremony has continued ever since, except that now (since the Turks hanged Parthenius III in 1657) the sultan thinks it beneath his dignity, so that it is performed by the grand vizier (Pitzipios, "L'Eglise Orientale", Rome, 1855, III, 83). Mohammed also arranged with Gennadius the condition of Orthodox Christians (the so-called "Roman nation") in the Turkish Empire made the patriarch their acknowledged civil head before the Porte and gave him a diploma (called berat) exactly defining his rights and duties. This berat is still given to every patriarch before his consecration (or enthronement). Gennadius, who was not in Holy orders, was then ordained to each grade. Although he so disliked Latins, he seems to have kept good relations with the sultan. One of the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church is the Confession (Homologia) made by him to Mohammed, by which he is said to have secured a certain measure of tolerance for his people (see below). As the Santa Sophia had been made into a mosque, he used as his patriarchal church, first that of the Apostles (where the emperors were buried), then that of the All-Blessed (tes pannakaristou = the Blessed Virgin). But after two years, in 1456 (Gedeon in his Patriarchikoi Pinakes, Constantinople, 1890; others say it was in 1459), he resigned. It is difficult to give the full reason for this step. It is commonly attributed to his disappointment at the sultan's treatment of Christians. On the other hand, Mohammed seems to have kept the fairly tolerant conditions he had allowed to them; various writers hint darkly at other motives (see Michalcescu, op. cit. infra, 13). Gennadius then, like so many of his successors, ended his days as an ex-patriarch and a monk. He lived in the monastery of St. John Baptist at Seres in Macedonia (north-east of Saloniki), and wrote books till his death in 1468 (Papageorgiu in the "Byzantinische Zeitschrift", III,315). Gennadius Scholarius fills an important place in Byzantine history. He was the last of the old school of polemical writers and one of the greatest. Unlike most of his fellows he had an intimate acquaintance with Latin controversial literature, especially with St. Thomas Aquinas and the Schoolmen. He was as skilful an opponent of Catholic theology as Marcus Eugenicus, and a more learned one. His writings show him to be a student not only of Western philosophy but of controversy with Jews and Mohammedans, of the great Hesychast question (he attacked Barlaam and defended the monks; naturally, the Barlaamites were lateinophrones, in short, of all the questions that were important in his time. He has another kind of importance as the first Patriarch of Constantinople under the Turk. From this point of view he stands at the head of a new period in the history of his Church; the principles that still regulate the condition of Orthodox Christians in the Turkish Empire are the result of Mohammed II's arrangement with him.

WORKS

Gennadius was a prolific writer during all the periods of his life. He is said to have left from 100 to 120 works (Michalcescu, op. cit. infra, 13). Of these a great number are still unedited. P. G., CLX, 320-773, contains the chief collection of what has been published. To this must be added the works in Simonides, Orth Hellen. theologikai graphai (London, 1859), 42-72; Jahn, "Anecdota græca theologica" (Leipzig, 1893), 1-68 and others mentioned below.

First Period (while he was in favour of the union, 1438-c. 1445).-- The chief works of this time are the "speeches" made at the Council of Florence (printed in Hardouin, IX, and P. G., CLX, 386 sqq.), also a number of letters addressed to various friends, bishops, and statesmen, mostly unedited. An "Apology for five chapters of the Council of Florence", edited first (in Latin) at Rome in 1577, and again in 1628, is doubtful (in P. G., CLIX, it is attributed to Joseph of Methone). A "History of the Council of Florence" under his name (in manuscript) is really identical with that of Syropulos (ed. Creighton, The Hague, 1660).

Second Period (as opponent of the union, to his resignation of the patriarchal see, c. 1445-1456 or 1459). A great number of polemical works against Latins were written in this time. Two books about the "Procession of the Holy Ghost" (one in Simonides, loc. cit., the other in P. G., CLX, 665); another one "against the insertion of the Filioque in the Creed" (ibid., 713); two books and a letter about "Purgatory"; various sermons and speeches; a "Panegyric of Marcus Eugenicus" (in 1447), etc. Some translations of works of St. Thomas Aquinas, and polemical treatises against his theology by Gennadius are still unedited, as is also his work against the Barlaamites. There are also various philosophical treatises of which the chief is a "Defence of Aristotle" (antilepseis hyper Aristotelous) against the Platonist, Gemistus Pletho (P.G., CLX, 743 sqq.).

His most important work is easily his "Confession" (Ekthesis tes pisteos ton orthodoxon christianon, generally known as Ohomologia tou Gennadiou) addressed to Mohammed II. It contains twenty articles, of which however only the first twelve are authentic. It was written in Greek; Achmed, Kadi of Berrhoea, translated it into Turkish. This is the first (in date) of the Orthodox Symbolic books. It was published first (in Greek and Latin) by Brassicanus (Vienna 1530), again by Chytræus (Frankfort, 1582). Crusius printed it in Greek, Latin, and Turkish (in Greek and Latin letters) in his "Turco-Græcia" (Basle, 1584 reprinted in P. G., CLX 333, sqq.). Rimmel has reprinted it (Greek and Latin) in his "Monumenta fidei Eccl. Orient." (Jena, 1850), I, 1-10; and Michalcescu in Greek only [Die Bekenntnisse und die wichtigsten Glaubenszeugnisse der griech.-orient. Kirche (Leipzig, 1904), 17-21]. There exists an arrangement of this Confession in the form of a dialogue in which Mohammed asks questions ("What is God?" -- "Why is he called theos?" -- "And how many Gods are there?" and so on) and Gennadius gives suitable answers. This is called variously Gennadius's "Dialogue" (didalexis), or "Confessio prior", or "De Via salutis humanæ" (Peri tes hodou tes soterias anthropon). Rimmel prints it first, in Latin only (op. cit., 1-10), and thinks it was the source of the Confession (ibid., iii). It is more probably a later compilation made from the Confession by some one else (Otto, op. cit. infra). It should be noticed that Gennadius's (quasi-Platonic) philosophy is in evidence in his Confession (God cannot be interpreted, theos from theein, etc.; cf. Rimmel, op. cit., viii-xvi). Either for the same reason or to spare Moslem susceptibility he avoids the word Prosopa in explaining the Trinity, speaking of the three Persons as idiomata "which we call Hypostases" (Conf., 3).

During the third period, from his resignation to his death (1459-1468), he continued writing theological and polemical works. An Encyclical letter to all Christians "In defence of his resignation" is unedited, as are also a "Dialogue with two Turks about the divinity of Christ", and a work about the "Adoration of God". Jahn (Anecdota græca) has published a "Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew" and a collection of "Prophecies about Christ" gathered from the Old Testament. A treatise, "About our God, one in three, against Atheists and Polytheists" (P.G., CLX, 667 sqq.), is chiefly directed against the theory that the world may have been formed by chance. Five books, "About the Foreknowledge and Providence of God" and a "Treatise on the manhood of Christ", are also in P.G., CLX. Lastly, there are many homilies by Gennadius most of which exist only in manuscript at Athos ("Codd. Athous", Paris, 1289-1298). A critical edition of Gennadius's collected works is badly needed.

For the question of the supposed two persons, both named George Scholarius, see ALLATIUS, De Georgiis eorumque scriptis in De Eccl. occid. atque orient. perp. consensione (Cologne, 1648), III, 5, 6. His theory has been taken up again by KIMMEL, op. cit., ii-vii, but was confuted long ago by RENAUDOT, Dissertatio de Gennadii vita et scriptis (Paris, 1709) in P. G., CLX, 249 sqq . OUDIN, Comment. de Script. Eccles. (Leipzig, 1722), III, 2481; FABRICIUS-HARLES, Bibl. Graeca (Hamburg, 1790), XI, 349; and everyone since maintain the identity of Gennadius. TRYPHON EVANGELIDES, Gennadios b' ho Scholarios (Athens, 1896); Samos, Georgios Scholarios (1895); DRÄSEKE in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift IV (1895), 3 sqq.; GEDEON, Patriarchikoi Pinakes (Constantinople, s. d.), 471 sqq. CRUSIUS, Turcogræcia I, 2; Orro, Des Patr. Gennadsus Confessio kritisch untersucht (Vienna, 1864); KRUMBACHER, Byzantinische Litteratur (2nd ed., Munich, 1897), 119-121.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Gennadius of Marseilles

(GENNADIUS SCHOLASTICUS).

A priest whose chief title to fame is his continuation of St. Jerome's catalogue "De Viris illustribus".

Nothing is known of his life, save what he tells us himself in the last (xcvii) of the biographies in question: "I, Gennadius, presbyter of Massilia, wrote eight books against all heresies, five books against Nestorius, ten books against Eutyches, three books against Pelagius, a treatise on the thousand years of the Apocalypse of John, this work, and a letter about my faith sent to blessed Gelasius, bishop of the city of Rome" (ed. Bernoulli, 95). This fixes his period more or less; Gelasius reigned from 492-496, so Gennadius must have lived at the end of the fifth century.

Internal evidence shows that he was a Semipelagian, as indeed the name of his city would make one suspect. Of all the works to which he refers, only the "De Viris illustribus" -- "this work" -- is certainly extant. He tells us further that he translated and restored to their authentic form Evagrius Ponticus's works (xi, 65), and those of Timothy Ælurus (lxxii, 86). These translations are also lost. He twice mentions a "catalogue of heretics" that he means to write (xxv, 74, and liii, 79). Presumably this is the work "against all heresies" referred to above. There is a pseudo-Augustinian treatise, "De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus" (P. L., LVIII, 979-1054), that is now universally attributed to Gennadius. The only question is with which of the works he speaks of having written the last-mentioned should be identified. It has often been thought to be the letter to Gelasius. Caspari (op. cit. infra), Bardenhewer, Czapla, and others have pointed out that the treatise has nothing of the nature of a letter or of a personal profession of faith. Only once, in chap. xxiii, does the author write in the first person (laudo, vitupero, etc.). They think therefore that it is more probably a fragment of Gennadius's eight books "against all heresies", apparently the last part, in which, having confuted the heretics, he builds up a positive system.

There are many indications that the author was a Semipelagian in Gennadius's chapters "De Viris illustribus". Semipelagians are warmly praised (Fastidiosus, lvi, p. 80; Cassian, lxi, 81; Faustus, lxxxv, 89); full Pelagians (Pelagius himself, xlii, 77; Julian of Eclanum, xlv, 77) are heretics; Catholics are treated shabbily (Augustine, xxxviii, 75; Prosper of Aquitania, lxxxiv, 89); even popes are called heretics (Julius I, in i, 61). The same tendency is confirmed by the treatise "De eccles. dogmatibus", which is full of Semipelagianism, either open or implied (original sin carefully evaded, great insistence on free will and denial of predestination, grace as an adjutorium in the mildest form, etc.; cf. Wiggers, op. cit. infra, 353 sqq.). Perhaps the most reprehensible effect of Gennadius's opinions on this point is his sneering remark about St. Augustine's prolific genius: "He wrote so much that it cannot all be found. For who shall boast of possessing all his works, or who shall read with as much care as he used in writing?" And at the end he tempers his faint praise by saying that Augustine "caused doubts about the question of unborn children to the simple" and that he "remained a Catholic" (xxxviii, 75). To say of Augustine merely that he remained a Catholic, shows prejudice, if anything can.

We have said that Gennadius's chief, if not his only, title to fame is his continuation of St. Jerome's "De Viris illustribus". In that work Jerome had for the first time drawn up a series of one hundred and thirty-five short biographies of famous Christians, with lists of their chief works. It was the first patrology and dictionary of Christian biography. So useful a book of reference naturally became popular, and while no one thought of controlling or correcting it, many people wrote continuations after the same method. We hear of such a continuation by one Paterius, a disciple of Jerome, and of a Greek translation by Sophronius. But it was Gennadius's continuation that won most favour, that was accepted everywhere as a second part of the same work, and was always written (eventually printed) together with St. Jerome's work. Gennadius's part contains about one hundred lives (variously numbered: by Bernoulli, i to xcvii, with some marked as xciib, etc., originally cxxxvi-ccxxxii), modelled strictly on those of Jerome. In xc, 92, he says (in one version) that Theodore of Coelesyria (Theodulus) "died three years ago, in the reign of Zeno". From this Czapla deduces that Gennadius wrote between 491 and 494. The series is arranged more or less in chronological order, but there are frequent exceptions. The text is in a bad state. Other people have modified it and added to it without noting the fact--as is usual among medieval writers. Richardson (op. cit. infra) and Czapla consider, apparently with reason, that chapters xxx (John of Jerusalem), lxxxvii (Victorinus), xciii (Cærealis of Africa), and all the end portion (xcv-ci), are not authentic. There is doubt about parts of the others. Gennadius was on the whole an honourable and scrupulous writer. In one place (lxxxv, 90) he says: "There are other works by him (Faustus) which I will not name because I have not yet read them." He uses the name "Scholasticus" as an honourable epithet repeatedly (lxiii, 82, lxvii, 84, lxxix, 87, lxxxiv, 89). It is generally, and very justly, given to him by others.

De Viris illustribus, ed. ANDREAS (Jerome and Gennadius together, as nearly always; Rome, 1468). This is the editio princeps: the work had a long history in manuscript before (cf. Bernoulli, op. cit., xvi-lvi), and has been reprinted constantly since. FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica (Hamburg, 1718), II, 1-43; this is the edition reproduced in P. L., LVIII, 1059-1120; the most practical modern ed. is BERNOULLI, Hieronymus und Gennadius De Viris illustribus (Freiburg im Br., 1895, vol. II of KRüGER, Sammlung ausgewählter Kirchen und dogsmengeschichtlichen Quellenschriften), with apparatus and notes. All references above are to this edition. The work De ecclesiasticis dogmatihus was published by ELMENHORST (Hamburg, 1614), reprinted in P. L., LVIII, 979-1054; CZAPLA, Gennadius als Litterarhistoriker (Münster, 1898). RICHARDSON edited GENNADIUS in the Texte und Untersuchungen-, XIV (1895); JUNGMANN, Quoestiones Gennadianoe (Leipzig, 1881); CASPARI, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota (Christiania, 1883); DIEKAMP, Wann hat Gennndius seinen Schriftstellerkatalog verfasst? in Römische Quartalschrift (1898), 411-420; BARDENHEWER, Patrologie, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br., 1908), 608; WIGGERS, Versuch einer pragm. Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus (Hamburg, 1833), 350-356.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Edmund and John Gennings

The first, a martyr for the Catholic Faith, and the second, the restorer of the English province of Franciscan friars, were brothers and converts to the Church. Edmund Gennings was born at Lichfield in 1567; died in London, 10 Dec., 1591. John was b. about 1570; d. at Douai, 12 Nov., 1660.

Edmund, even in his boyhood, exhibited an unusual gravity of manners and a mystical turn of mind; when about sixteen years of age, he was converted to the Catholic Faith, and immediately afterwards entered the English College at Reims. He was ordained priest in 1590, being then only twenty-three years of age, and at once returned to England under the assumed name of Ironmonger. But his missionary career was of short duration, for he was seized whilst saying Mass in London on 7 Nov., 1591, and executed at Gray's Inn Fields on 10 Dec. His martyrdom was the occasion of several remarkable incidents, chief of which was the conversion of his younger brother John. On his return to England, Edmund Gennings had at once gone to Lichfield to seek out his kindred in the hope of bringing them to the true faith but he found that all his relatives were dead except this one brother, who had, however, left his native city and gone to London. Thither Edmund proceeded and for a whole month searched the city, visiting every place where he thought his brother might be found. Eventually, when he was about to give up the search, he achieved his purpose, but the younger brother, far from being won over to Edmund's faith, only besought him to go away, lest he himself should become suspect; and when after awhile Edmund was seized and condemned John "rejoiced rather than bewailed the untimely and bloody end of his nearest kinsman, hoping thereby to be rid of all persuasions which he suspected he should receive from him touching the Catholic Religion". So wrote John Gennings in his life of his brother, published in 1614 at St-Omer.

Undoubtedly at this time John Gennings was bent on pleasure, but one must make allowances for the spirit of remorse with which he looked back on those days in after years, and not accept his own estimate of his youth too readily. However, about ten days after his brother's execution, a change came over him. He began one night to think of his brother's death and contempt of the world, and to compare his own life with that of the martyr. He was struck with remorse and wept bitterly, and next prayed for light. Instantly he felt an exceeding great reverence for the saints and, above all our Blessed Lady, and it seemed to him that he saw his brother in glory. He thereupon made a vow to forsake friends and country and seek a true knowledge of his brother's faith. Being received into the Church, he entered Douai College, was ordained priest in 1607, and the following year was sent upon the English mission. Here he conceived a desire for the restoration of the English province of Franciscans, and sought out Father William Staney, the Commissary of the English friars, and from him received the habit, either in 1610 or 1614 (the date is uncertain). After this, he went for a time to a convent of the order at Ypres, in Flanders, where he was joined by several English companions, amongst whom was Christopher Davenport, known in religion as Franciscus a Sancta Clara, afterwards a famous controversialist. Thus was the foundation of a new English province laid, and Father William Staney recognising the zeal of John Gennings, now gave into his hands the seal of the old province of the English Observants.

Gennings next proceeded to procure a house for the English friars at Gravelines, but in 1618 he obtained leave from the minister general to establish a settlement at Douai. As a matter of fact, most of the friars who had joined Gennings were alumni of Douai College, and in transferring their residence to that town he hoped to obtain a continuous supply of recruits. The work of restoring the English province was definitely confided to him by the general chapter of 1618, and he was nominated "Vicar of England". To assist him in the work of restoration, the commissary general of the Belgian nation was empowered to gather together all the English and Scotch friars from any province in the order. A decree of the same general chapter placed the English Poor Clares of Gravcelines under the jurisdiction of English friars. In 1625, the number of the English friars having greatly increased, Gennings sent Father Franciscus a Sancta Clara to Rome to plead that the English province be canonically established. The request was granted with the simple restriction that the superior of the province should not assume the title of provincial, but that of custos; but in 1629, this restriction was taken away and Friar John Gennings was appointed minister provincial. The first chapter of the new province was held at Brussels in Advent of the same year, in the convent of the English sisters of the third order, which Gennings had himself founded in 1619. This community of tertiary sisters has continued to the present time, and is now established at Taunton, in England, with a branch house at Woodchester. Father John Gennings was re-elected provincial in 1634, and again in 1643.

FATHER CUTHBERT

Genoa

ARCHDIOCESE OF GENOA (JANUENSIS)

Archdiocese in Liguria, Northern Italy. The city is situated on the gulf of the same name, extends along the lowest ridges of the Ligurian Apennines, which sweep around the gulf, between the mouths of the Polcevera and the Bisagno, and is protected from the inroads of these waters by the Punta della Lanterna and the Punta del Carignano. The bay forms a natural harbour secured against storms by the promontory of Portofino, which acts as a breakwater. Two piers (the smaller one begun in 1133) were necessary to break the force of the tide during storms. Its favourable position has made Genoa the largest trade centre on the Mediterranean. It is also a naval fortress with a chain of defences about ten miles in length.

In 205 B.C., Mago the Carthaginian landed there with a large army, and sacked the town for its sympathy with Rome, the rest of Liguria supporting the Carthaginians. From the end of the Second Punic War, Genoa belonged to Rome. After the Lombard invasion, it remained subject to Byzantium, like nearly all the maritime towns of Italy. In A.D. 641 King Rotari, in his expedition along the coast of Liguria, sacked Genoa, and carried off immense booty. It was later incorporated in the Lombard kingdom, probably under Charlemagne, becoming part of the March of Obertenga. In 935, it was surprised and sacked by the Saracens, but the Genoese fleet followed up the enemy and defeated them near the island of Asinara. In 1008, the Saracens came for the third time. Meanwhile the trade and enterprise of Genoa had steadily increased, and now rivalled that of Pisa, in those early times its friendly neighbour. In 1016, they drove the Arab chief Mogalied from Sardinia. In 1052, the town organized itself into a commune, and was governed by consuls and a podestà (mayor); in 1258, however, the control was divided between the podestà and a "captain of the people", a condition which lasted till 1310. From 1339 to 1797, except when the rule was in the hands of foreigners, the city was governed by doges chosen from the principal families, at first for life, but after 1528 for periods of two years.

In 1087, the Genoese and Pisans captured Almadia and Subeila in Africa. In the First Crusade their fleet transported the crusading armies to the Holy Land, secured many ports in Syria and Palestine for the Christians, and, in return for their services, they were granted important commercial privileges among the Christian principalities of the East. Together with the Pisans they aided Innocent II to put down the schism of Anacletus, and, as a reward, the pope divided between the two municipalities the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, retaining, however, his own overlordship. In 1147, they took Almeria and Tortosa, in Spain, from the Moors. The threatening attitude of Genoa forced Frederick Barbarossa to recognize all its liberties and possessions; hence, until the reign of Frederick II, it remained friendly to the imperial cause, and even assisted in the attack on Sicily. In 1240, however, the Genoese refused to do homage to Frederick II, and, in 1241, they lent their fleet to transport the northern prelates to the council convened by Gregory IX, but were pursued and defeated between the islands of Il Giglio and Monte Cristo by the Pisans, the allies of the emperor. In 1244, Innocent IV took refuge in Genoa. The commercial favour shown by the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-60) towards the Venetians enabled the latter to defeat the Genoese at St-Jean d'Acre and on the high seas, in 1257 and 1258 respectively. In 1261, the Genoese took their revenge by assisting Michael Palæologus to reconquer Constantinople, and obtained from him Smyrna and Pera, and the monopoly of trade in the Black Sea. They developed markets rapidly on the shores of this sea, the principal one being Caffa, and carried on a brisk trade, exporting mainly wine, oil, woollens, and silks, and importing skins, furs, corn, Persian stuffs, etc. For the government of these colonies, a general consulate of the empire of Gazaria was established.

A bitter war now began between the rival cities of Genoa and Pisa. From 1262 to 1267, five naval battles (Settepozzi, Durazzo, Trapani, Tyre, and St-Jean d'Acre) were fought, in which Genoa was generally the loser. St. Louis IX of France sought to establish peace on a firm footing (Cremona, 1270); but a revolt in Corsica, stirred up by the Pisans, soon led to another war (1282-1284), which ended in the utter defeat of the Pisans near the island of Meloria. Soon the old rivalry with Venice was renewed, and the scene of the conflict shifted to the East. At Laiazzo, on the coast of Armenia, the Genoese were victorious (1294); the Venetians retaliated by destroying the Genoese quarter of Galato (1296), but in 1298 Lamba Doria (founder of the Doria family, famous in the annals of Genoa) totally destroyed the Venetian fleet at Curzola. Both rivals being now weakened, Henry VII (1311) easily obtained from the Genoese the right to govern them for twenty years, and a promise of help against Naples. A little later, Robert of Anjou (1318-1335) was called in by the Guelphs in opposition to the Visconti of Milan, favoured by the Ghibellines. When the Venetians, together with the Greeks and the Catalonians, wished, in 1342, to occupy the island of Scio as an outpost against the Turks, the Genoese, profiting by a quarrel among the allies, forestalled them. This, amongst other causes, led to a fresh outbreak of war in 1350. In the Bosphorus (1352), a fierce but indecisive battle was fought; while at Alghero in Sardinia (1353) the Genoese were defeated by the Venetians and their allies. Genoa then chose Giovanni Visconti, Archbishop of Milan, as its ruler of "Signore". In 1354, Paganino Doria routed the Venetian forces in the Adriatic and at Porto Longone in the Morea (Greece). Driven out of the Black Sea, the Venetians took Beirut by way of compensation, and Genoa seized Cyprus (1373). When the Greek Emperor, John V, gave the Venetians the island of Tenedos, the Genoese, fearing lest the former should thereby have access to the Black Sea, espoused the cause of Andronicus; in this way broke out the conflict known as the War of Chioggia. The Genoese, defeated at Anzio (1378), were victorious at Pola (1379) and blockaded Venice, but were obliged to surrender when the blockade was broken by Vettor Pisani. The great rivals were now exhausted.

During the fifteenth century, Genoa constantly called on outsiders to rule her, but as constantly rebelled against their rule (1396-1409, France; 1409-1413, Teodoro II Paleologo di Monferrato; 1422-1435, Filippo Maria Visconti; 1458-1461, France; 1464-1478, 1487-1499, the Sforza of Milan; 1499-1512, 1515-1522, France). Meanwhile her colonies in the East were slipping away (Pera, 1453; Caffa, 1475). In 1431, at Portofino, the fleet in the service of Visconti was defeated by the Venetian and Florentine allies. Genoa was involved in the conflict between Francis I and Charles V, and in 1522 was sacked by the Spaniards. In 1527, the Spanish were expelled by the celebrated Andrea Doria with French aid, and in the year following Andrea succeeded in ridding himself of his French allies. The "Signoria" was offered him, but he prudently refused the title, though in reality he exercised its powers. This brought about the Fieschi Plot (1546), which proved abortive owing to the death of its leader. Noteworthy events in the subsequent history of Genoa are the attempts of Corsica to shake off Genoese authority (1553; 1737, King Theodore), its annexation by France in 1768, and the two conspiracies for the annexation of Genoa by Savoy (Vachero, 1628; Della Torre, 1672). In 1684, Louis XIV, without any just cause, had the town bombarded. A hundred years later (1797) the French set up there a democratic republic. In 1800, Masséna sustained a famous siege and blockade on the part of the Austrians and English. In 1805, the duchy was annexed to France, but in 1814 was provisionally, and in 1815 definitely, annexed to the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Genoa owes to the magnificence of its architecture its title of "La Superba" (the Proud). Among its best-known churches are: San Lorenzo, rebuilt in the twelfth century, the lower part of the façade dating from 1100, the remainder from 1523. The spandrils over the door are decorated with bas-reliefs of various periods. The cupola dates from 1567. There are paintings by Barrocci, Ferrari, Cambiaso, and sculptures by Montorsoli, Sansovino, Guglielmo della Porta and others. Near by is the little church of St. John the Baptist, formerly the baptistery of the city. The church of Saints Andrew and Ambrose (600) has paintings by Guido Reni and Rubens. Santissima Annunziata has beautiful Composite columns, and a famous Last Supper by Procaccino. In the church of St. Catherine of Genoa (with the saint's room adjoining) may be seen her body preserved in a silver urn. The church of Saints Cosmas and Damian antedates the year 1000; that of St. Donatus, consecrated in 1189, is built of old Roman materials. St. Philip Neri dates from 1694; the Gesù Maria from 1487. The latter has paintings by Paggi, Cambiaso, and Salimbeni. St. George's has two bronze doors, a part of the booty of Almeria (1148). The altar of St. John's was erected after the victory at Pola. On the façade of St. Mark's (1173) is a marble lion captured from the Venetians at Pola. Other churches are: Santa Maria in Castello (columns of oriental granite); Santa Maria del Carmine (rich tabernacle); San Siro (the cathedral till 985); San Stefano, which existed in 493, and has a painting by Giulio Romano. San Matteo, containing the war-trophies of the Dorias, was founded in 1125 by Martino Doria, and restored by Andrea Doria from plans by Fra Giovanni Angelo Mortorsoli; on the façade is the sarcophagus of Lamba Doria, the victor at Curzola; under the high altar is the tomb of Andrea Doria by Montorsoli, and several inscriptions recall the triumphs of this noble family of seamen and rulers. Santa Maria in Carignano (sixteenth century), one of the handsomest churches in the world, is in the form of a Greek cross; its cupola is the work of Galeazzo Alessi (q. v.) of Perugia. The Campo Santo, or public cemetery, is also greatly admired for its beautiful statuary. Among Genoa's public edifices are the Albergo dei Poveri, or home for the poor (1655), with a church attached; the Loggia dei Banchi, or exchange, built by Galeazzo Alessi. The Palazzo Ducale (1291) is crowned with a row of stucco statues of the various princes and kings defeated by the Genoese; its spacious halls were adorned by famous artists. The Palazzo S. Giorgio (1260), restored in 1368, has many statues of the doges of the fifteenth century. Worthy of notice also are the university, founded in 1471 by Bartolomeo Bianco, the Palazzo Reale, and the Municipio or Town Hall. Genoa has many famous private palaces, e.g. the Adorno, with paintings by Rubens, Guido Reni, Titian, and Giulio Romano; the Doria, with a representation of St. George and the Dragon over the doorway. Besides the university, there is a merchant-marine school, a Catholic high school, an academy of fine arts and other institutions of a similar nature.

The line of bishops is usually dated from St. Solomon or Salonius, said to have been martyred in 269. Other bishops are mentioned in the third and fourth centuries, the first known with any certainty being Diogenes, a member of the Council of Aquileia in 381. Blessed Jacobus a Voragine, author of the Legenda Aurea (Golden Legend) and Bishop of Genoa (1292-1298), tells us that till the tenth century he found no mention of a Bishop of Genoa, thus proving that in his time nothing was known of the legendary martyred bishops. The St. Syrus I assigned to the beginning of the fourth century may therefore be a double of St. Syrus II (1139-1163). When the Lombards captured Milan (568), its bishop, Laurentius, and many of his clergy took refuge in Genoa; five other Milanese bishops took up their residence there. It was this same Laurentius who dedicated the church of St. Ambrose built for the Milanese refugees. About 617, Bishop Appellinus became involved in the schism of Agrestius. In 634, Bishop Asterius ordained St. Byrsinus, who was to be one of the apostles of Northumbria.

Councils were held at Genoa in 773 (?), 1216, and 1292. Innocent IV and Adrian V were natives of the city. It was originally a suffragan of Milan, but, in 1133, Innocent II made it a metropolitan see. Its first archbishop was the St. Syrus mentioned above. Its suffragan sees are Albenga, Bobbio, Brugnate and Luni-Saranza, Chiavari, Savona and Noli, Tortona, Ventimiglia. In has 200 parishes and 470,000 souls (161,000 in the city); there are 33 religious houses for men in the city, and 19 throughout the diocese; also 62 convents for women in the city, and 82 throughout the diocese. The archdiocese supports 2 Catholic daily newspapers, 3 weekly papers, and 13 other periodicals.

CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d'Italia (Venice, 1857), XIII, 269-419; SEMERIA, Storia della metropoli di Genova (1843); CANALE, Storia civile, commerciale e letteraria dei Genovesi fino al 1797 (Genoa, 1844-1845); HERMANN, Gesch. Genuas (Dresden, 1832); Giornale storico e letterario della Liguria (1900-).

U. BENIGNI

Gentile da Fabriano

Italian painter; b. probably about 1378 in the District of the Marches; d. probably 1427. The history of this artist has for a long time been involved in mystery, and even Vasari's statements concerning him have to be accepted with caution. Of his early life we still know nothing, but thanks to the investigations of Milanesi, Amico Ricci, and later on of Venturi and Corrado Ricci, we have a few definite facts concerning him. The earliest mention of him is concerned with the decoration of the large council hall in the doges' palace at Venice, which, it seems clear, must have been carried out between 1411 and 1414, probably in the former year, as the theory set up by Wickhoff, placing the work at a much later date, has now been proved to be untenable. In 1408, however, Gentile is known to have painted a large altar-piece in Venice for Francesco Amadi, and this date implies that he must have been resident in the city for some years previously, because it was not possible for an artist, who had not been born in Venice, to be accepted as a member of its school or guild, unless resident in the city for some considerable time before he made his application. Between April, 1414, and September, 1419, we know that he was painting in Brescia, decorating a chapel for Pandolfo Malatesta, and it was on the occasion of the visit which Pope Martin V made to Malatesta, when he was received at Chiari, that the pope invited Gentile to pay him a visit in Rome. We have evidence of the date on which he set out, because on the 18 September, 1419, he applied for a safe-conduct. There were serious difficulties, however, connected with the early days of the pontificate of Martin V, and Gentile only got as far as Florence, and could not proceed to Rome.

Of Gentile's residence in Florence we have evidence from the two applications he made, dated 23 March, and 6 April, 1420, that he might be relieved from the payment of tribute, inasmuch as he was only temporarily sojourning in Florence, and was on his way to his native city; but he could not have remained very long in Fabriano, because on 21 November, 1422, he figures in the deeds of matriculation connected with the doctors and painters of Florence, and in the following year he signs and dates his picture executed to the order of Palla Strozzi for the church of Santa Trinitè in that city. The evidence that he continued in Florence in 1423 is found in some deeds relating to a curious quarrel which took place between one of Gentile's pupils and a certain Bernardo, who threw some stones into the courtyard of the house where Gentile was, breaking some small pieces of sculpture which happened to be of great value to the artist.

Gentile's work in Siena has usually been assigned to the year 1426, but closer investigation shows that it was carried out in 1425, and a lease of a house in Siena taken for a month by the artist in that year is still in existence, and proves the date of the residence of Gentile in Siena, and the time that he took to paint the picture. It is dated 22 July, and at the end of August of the same year Gentile was in Orvieto, painting in the Duomo, as the archives of the cathedral prove. That work completed, he was at length able to leave for Rome, and in 1427 was at work in the church of San Giovanni in Laterano, and the records of his engagement and stipend have been printed. By 22 November, 1428, he was dead, because on that day, according to the evidence of the commune of Fabriano, his niece Maddalena took possession of the property of her uncle, who was declared to have died in Rome intestate. Further evidence of this date is given by a deed dated October, 1427, in which the master is spoken of as deceased, and these documents prove the inaccuracy of the statements of Vasari both as regards the date of Gentile's decease and the place where Vasari says he died, Cittè di Castello. Amico Ricci and Milanesi were inaccurate in stating that Gentile died after 1450, as they were misled by a phrase "autore requisito" which occurs in a document representing the visit of Roger van der Weyden to Rome, when he visited San Giovanni in Laterano, and saw the paintings of Gentile. He expressed the greatest admiration for the work, and according to Ricci and Milanesi called the author of the paintings before him. Inasmuch as the visit took place in 1450, these two authors placed Gentile's decease after that date, but the phrase refers to the author having died, and this is proved by the two documents just cited.

These few facts practically embrace all that we definitely know respecting this artist. He is said to have learned his art under Allegretto Nuzzi. His family name is by some writers given as Maso or Massi, and his burial is said to have taken place in Santa Francesca Romana in the Campo Vaccino, but all these statements are for the present matters of conjecture. He was probably born at Fabriano in the March of Ancona, according to the evidence of his name, but Nuzzi is believed to have died when Gentile was fifteen years old, and therefore he could have derived very little instruction from Nuzzi. Two of his pictures are dated, the "Adoration of the Kings" in the Academy at Florence, 1423; and the group of saints in San Nicolò in the same city, 1425. His best work in Rome and Venice has perished, but he is well represented in the Brera Gallery in Milan, the galleries of Perugia, Paris, and Berlin; and important pictures in the Heugel collection in Paris and the Stroganoff collection in St. Petersburg are now accepted as being from his hand. Of his work in Rome there is a representation of the miracle of St. Nicholas to be seen in the Vatican Gallery, and part of his work in Orvieto still remains. A picture in the royal collection at Buckingham Palace is attributed to him, with considerable evidence in its favour; and his paintings are also to be seen at Settignano, in the municipal gallery at Pisa, and in the Jarves collection at Newhaven in the United States, but his most important work is the large picture in the Academy in Florence, a painting of remarkable excellence and extraordinary beauty. In his birthplace there is one picture representing St. Francis, which is probably a genuine work. His paintings are distinguished by great magnificence of colour and marked by his peculiar method of high relief in gesso work, and by the remarkable use he made of small portions of the most brilliant colour, applied in conjunction with masses of gold. He may be accepted as one of the greatest masters of his period, and as a man exceedingly skilful in composition, and full of grand ideas as regards colouring and effect, for in the combination of rich colour with gold he has seldom if ever been equalled amongst decorative painters.

ARDUINO COLASANTI, Gentile da Fabriano (Bergamo, 1909); AMICO RICCI, Memorie Storiche delle Arti e degli Artisti della Marca di Ancona (Macerata, 1834); GIULIO CANTALAMESSA, Vecchi affreschi a S. Vittoria in Matenano in Nuova Revista Misena, III, 1; A. AND A. LONGHI, L'anno della morte di Gentile da Fabriano (Fano, 1887); VASARI, Vite de' più eccelenti pittori (Florence, 1550); also edited by MILANESI (Florence, 1878-85); BRYAN'S Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, ed. WILLIAMSON, III (London and New York, 1904), s. v. Massi.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Gentiles

(Heb. Gôyîm; Gr. ethne, ethnikoi, Hellenes; Vulg. Gentes, Gentiles, Graeci).

A word of Latin origin and usually employed in the plural. In the English versions of both Testaments it collectively designates the nations distinct from the Jewish people. The basis of this distinction is that, as descendants of Abraham, the Jews considered themselves, and were in fact, before the coming of Christ, the chosen people of God. As the non-Jewish nations did not worship the true God and generally indulged in immoral practices, the term Gôyîm "Gentiles" has often times in the Sacred Writings, in the Talmud, etc., a disparaging meaning. Since the spread of Christianity, the word Gentiles designates, in theological parlance, those who are neither Jews nor Christians. In the United States, the Mormons use it of persons not belonging to their sect. See PROSELYTES.

(Catholic authors are marked with an asterisk.) SCHURER, History of the Jewish People, second division, vol. I (New York, 1891); SELBIE in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s. v.; LESÊTRE* in Vig.,Dict de la Bible, s. v. Gentils; HIRSCH in Jewish Encycl., s. v. (New York, 1903); BROWN, BRIGGS, AND DRIVER, Hebrew and English Lexicon, s. v. XXX (New York, 1906); DÖLLINGER*, The Gentile and the Jew (tr. London 1906).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Aloysius Gentili

Born 14 July, 1801, at Rome; died 26 September, 1848, at Dublin. He was proficient in poetry, displayed considerable musical aptitude, had a taste for mechanical and electrical science and was devoted to the cultivation of modern languages, applying himself more particularly to the study of English. His early life was that of a brilliant young man of the world, full of ambition of a nobler kind, a pet of society, and an evident favourite of fortune. He sought admission into the Society of Jesus, and would have been accepted, but his health seemed broken, and the Society did not venture to receive him. He became more and more impressed with the conviction that God called him to the priesthood and to labour for the conversion of England. He made, the acquaintance of Father Rosmini who, at his earnest entreaty, accepted him as a postulant of the newly-founded Institute of Charity. He remained in Rome, attending theological lectures whilst residing at the Irish College, in order, at the same time, to improve his English, and after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1830, proceeded to Domo d'Ossola to make his novitiate.

Whilst Gentili was living at the Irish College, a young English gentleman, who had been converted whilst a student at Cambridge, arrived in Rome. This was Mr. Ambrose Phillips de Lisle (q. v.). This zealous convert applied to the rector of the Irish College, to obtain for him a priest to preach the Catholic Faith in the neighbourhood of his ancestral home. The rector suggested the Abate Gentili as in every way suited to the purpose. This led to a great friendship between the young priest and Mr. de Lisle, the submission of the whole project to Rosmini, and eventually to the coming of Gentili and other fathers to England in 1835. It was not merely the invitation of Mr. Phillips de Lisle that brought the Rosminians to England. In the meantime, one of the vicars Apostolic, Bishop Baines, who then ruled over the Western District, having his residence at Bath, had sought to obtain the services of the fathers for his college of Prior Park. Though Rosmini gave his consent as early as 1831, the period of preparation for the English Mission was a long one; for the little band did not sail from Civita Vecchia till 22 May, 1835. They set forth with a more personal blessing and mission from the Holy See than even St. Augustine and his companions received from St. Gregory the Great for Pope Gregory XVI actually came on board the vessel and blessed the three as "Italian missioners", just before they sailed, probably a unique event in missionary history. Gentili and his companions arrived in London on 15 June, and no time was lost in getting to work. A few days later Gentili preached his first sermon in England, at Trelawney House, in Cornwall, whither they had been invited by Sir Henry Trelawney, Bart., a zealous convert. He took for his text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", and his discourse made a remarkable impression upon the many Protestants who came to hear it. Soon after, the missionaries were settled at Prior Park, where early in the following year (1836) Gentili gave a retreat to the whole college; and this was one of the first, if not the first public retreat according to the method of St. Ignatius given in a secular college in England. For this reason it excited among some no little criticism and opposition as a "novelty".

For two years Gentili was made president of Prior Park; but bishop Baines' plan of combining secular and regular professors on his staff was an ill-advised one, and eventually led to the only possible result, viz., the entire withdrawal of the fathers from Prior Park College. This step left them free to devote their energies and their increasing numbers to the real work for which they came--preaching the Faith to the English people. In 1840 was opened the missionary settlement at Grace-Dieu, the seat of Mr. Philips de Lisle, from which as a centre they evangelized much of the surrounding country, the total population of which region was reckoned at 6000, of which only twenty - seven were catholics. Notwithstanding the unpromising surroundings, the bitter hostility of the neighbouiring ministers and Gentili's being publicly burnt in effigy, his ceaseless labours were rewarded on a space of some two years, by the reception sixty-one adult converts, the baptism of sixty-six children under seven years of age and of twenty other children conditionally, and the conversion of an Anglican clergyman, Rev. Francis Wackerbarth. These consoling fruits were secured by incessant toil, daily instructions, visits, and religious services of every kind, sometimes in inns or hired rooms, sometimes in a poor cottage, or even in the open air. In the meantime the numbers of the Fathers had much grown. Among the Italians are now to be mentioned Fathers Pagalli, Rinolfi, and Signini; while some Englishmen and Irishmen had joined their ranks, notably the afterwards celebrated Fathers Furlong and Hutton. In 1842 Gentili visited Oxford, where it is probable, but not certain, that he met Newman. At any rate the visit had important consequences. For Gentili did meet one of Newman's chief and best-beloved followers, William Lockhart, a young Scotch graduate. The result was that during August of the following year, "Mr. Lockhart, feeling it impossible to resist his conviction that the Anglican Church had fallen into fatal Schism in separating from the Holy See, came to visit Father Gentili at Loughborough. After making a few days retreat under him in the chapel house at Loughborough, he was received into the Catholic Church, and a little later, entered as a postulant of the Order". This conversion was the very first fruit of the Oxford Movement, preceding the reception of Newman himself by no less than two years.

The first public mission was given at Loughborough by Fathers Gentili and Furlong, and had an extraordinary success. Sixty-three converts were instructed and received at it. From this time forward, the work of the fathers takes a new and far wider development. Great public missions all over the country alternate with innumerable spiritual retreats to colleges and communities for the next five years. It was a stirring-up of the minds and hearts of the Catholics of England, and a gathering into the net of converts from Protestantism, on a scale which astonishes us as we read of it at this distance of time. Some idea may be given of the labours and zeal of the fathers from what has been recorded of various great public missions. They usually gave four or five discourses daily, at fixed intervals, taking the sermons alternately, treating both dogmatic and moral Gospel doctrines, especially the great truths, the mystery of the Redemption, the Divine precepts, the Life of Christ. And the whole of the time intervening between the discourses was devoted to the arduous work of the confessional. So great usually was the concourse of penitents, that the fathers were kept occupied for eight or ten hours a day. Sometimes they even remained in church all night long, hearing confessions, and had absolutely no time either to say Mass, or recite the Divine Office much less take any sleep, or any nourishment, except in a hasty manner. Such wearisome labours were not interrupted, but only varied, for weeks and even months together. They had to prepare children for their First Communion, instruct converts restore peace in families, see to the restitution of ill-gotten goods. They also introduced processions, evening Benedictions, and other solemn functions at the close of rnissions.

The years 1844 to 1848 were fully occupied with an incredible number of popular missions and retreats all over England. At Newcastle 250 adult Protestants were received into the Church; at Manchester missions in three of the principal churches produced to less than 378 converts. It was in 1848 that Gentili gave his great mission in Dublin, where, in spite of the political excitement of that year, the confessionals were so crowded, that the Fathers often sat there without a break from the last instruction at night till the Mass on the following morning. But a sad and altogether unexpected blow brought to a sudden end the labours of this great mission. Father Gentili, the pioneer missioner, was suddenly seized with a fatal fever, and died after only a few days illness. His mortal remains still repose in Glasnevin Cemetery.

L.C. CASARTELLI

Genuflexion

To genuflect [Lat. genu flectere, geniculare (post-classic), to bend the knee; Gr. gonu klinein or kamptein] expresses: